Abstract The increasing integration of AI into the inventive process has raised significant legal challenges, particularly concerning inventorship and the right to apply for patents. The UK Supreme Court's judgement in Thaler v Comptroller‐General of Patents reaffirmed the human‐centric approach to inventorship under the Patents Act 1977, emphasising that only natural persons can be named inventors. However, the increasing autonomy of AI systems challenges the conventional paradigm regarding inventorship. This article first analyses whether inventorship remains legally sufficient in the context of existing AI systems. The analysis then extends to the potential emergence of AGI, assessing its anticipated impact on inventorship. By exploring whether AGI capabilities could challenge the traditional requirement of a human inventor, this article considers the need for legal adaptation to achieve a balanced approach that reflects technological advancements while maintaining legal certainty. Additionally, this article examines the transfer of rights in AI‐generated inventions, evaluating whether AI should continue to be classified strictly as property owned by its owner, with rights transferred under the doctrine of accession, or whether it should be granted a form of legal personhood with limited rights, including inventorship and patent ownership. To provide a novel perspective, this article introduces the argument that a dual legal status could be conceptualised for future AI systems. By addressing these emerging legal challenges, this study contributes to the ongoing debate on whether and how patent law should be reformed to accommodate AI's growing role in the inventive process.

As intangible cultural heritage (ICH) becomes increasingly visible in global cultural, creative, and digital markets, questions surrounding ownership, interpretation, and sustainable transmission have taken on new urgency. This article offers an integrated review of the evolving intersections among ICH, intellectual property protection (IPP), and globalization, with a specific focus on China—the world’s most active ICH-bearing nation. Drawing on legal scholarship, bibliometric studies, ethnographic research, and emerging digital-innovation literature, the study develops two analytical frameworks: a pathway model tracing how ICH is transformed into cultural intellectual property within domestic institutional settings, and a multi-level embedding model explaining how ICH is reinterpreted and reorganized in destination cultural and legal environments. Findings highlight three major tensions. First, the ontological mismatch between ICH and IP systems—most notably the conflict between the communal nature of heritage and the novelty requirements of patent law—generates persistent dilemmas around collective authorship, dynamic evolution, and cultural obligations. Second, cross-border dissemination produces both opportunities for global visibility and risks of cultural discount, symbolic dilution, and inequitable benefit-sharing. Third, while digitalization and generative AI provide novel modes of revitalization, they also raise concerns about data sovereignty, algorithmic appropriation, and community exclusion. The study argues that effective governance requires culturally sensitive IP strategies, participatory decision-making mechanisms, and ethical digital infrastructures that ensure the sustainability of living heritage. By bridging fragmented research strands, this article contributes a comprehensive theoretical and empirical foundation for understanding how Chinese ICH navigates the legal, cultural, and technological conditions of the global era.

Abstract On 24 May 2024, member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) adopted the Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. Mandating that contracting parties require that patent applicants disclose any genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge that their invention is based on, the treaty has been hailed as historic triumph. In this article, we analyze whether the treaty is so remarkable in relation to Aotearoa New Zealand’s existing law and practice. Finding that it is not, and that the treaty could place limits on the law, we argue that Aotearoa New Zealand should not sign the Treaty but could learn from it. We conclude that, while Aotearoa New Zealand must continue to partake in any ongoing international negotiations, it should continue to find ways to address the domestic situation.

Patent quality and patentability requirements: Evidence from the third amendment to the Chinese Patent Law

The recognition of AI as an inventor in the patent law and intellectual property rights system raises complex and intriguing issues. On one hand, acknowledging AI as an inventor can accelerate innovation in AI technology, but it also brings ethical, legal, and environmental considerations. Legal protection for AI as a creator needs to consider principles of fairness, sustainability, and balance between individual rights and public interests. Proposed regulatory steps include developing new standards, expanding the definition of inventor, protecting intellectual property rights, transparency obligations, and fostering collaboration among countries and relevant stakeholders. Continued discussions, research, and comprehensive legal frameworks are crucial to accommodate the changes and developments in AI technology fairly and sustainably. To address these issues, it is important to encourage dialogue among legal experts, technology specialists, stakeholders, and legal institutions, conduct further research to identify the impacts, challenges, and opportunities related to recognizing AI as an inventor, and formulate clear and comprehensive regulations based on ethical values, justice, sustainability, and balance. Collaboration at the international level to establish global standards regarding the recognition of AI as an inventor is essential. By taking these steps, we aim to create a legal framework that can accommodate the advancements in AI technology fairly, sustainably, and provide maximum benefits to society and the environment.

In the context of contemporary patent law, the role and significance of patent claims are indisputable. In the course of the application process, it is incumbent upon the applicant to define the solution for which they are seeking protection. Following the granting of a patent, the claims delineate the subject matter of the patent, a crucial element in determining the scope of the exclusivity enjoyed by the right holder. Doubts and controversies arise in both doctrine and case law. Of particular concern is the admissibility of the interpretation of claims. The rules, basis and method of the latter are the source of patent law for the purposes of determining the scope of protection resulting from the granted patent, events and circumstances occurring in the proceedings in which the patentability of the subject matter of the application was examined

Abstract Over the last few years, there have been claims that de-extinction practitioners will recreate the ‘Woolly Mammoth’ (Mammuthus primigenius)—or at least something that resembles it—by 2027. Given the recent births of the ‘Colossal Woolly Mouse’—mice engineered to express multiple key mammoth-like traits that provide adaptations to life in cold climates—and the ‘Dire Wolf’—genetically modified grey wolves— it appears that Colossal Biosciences’ goal of bringing back a mammoth is now becoming a realistic prospect. Building on previous work that explores whether de-extinct species would qualify as patent-eligible subject matter under European and United States (US) patent law, this article critically assesses the potential ethical implications of patenting a woolly mammoth created via genetic engineering under European Patent Law, and highlights some of the ecological and animal welfare objections that are likely to be raised. We argue that such ethical considerations are likely to be similar to those raised against transgenic animals in the past, and thus unlikely to be significant hurdles to patenting a de-extinct woolly mammoth under European Patent Law.

The article examines whether and how patent law can accommodate ethical and legal concerns related to lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) within the scope of the public order and morality exception. Its central argument is that the grant of patent protection for inventions connected with LAWS requires balancing the technological neutrality of patent law with the need to safeguard humanity, human rights, and the foundations of public order.The methodology combines doctrinal and comparative legal analysis of the TRIPS Agreement and Ukrainian legislation with a review of positions taken by international actors (the UN, the ICRC) and relevant administrative practice. The focus is on the meaning of the criterion of “preventing commercial exploitation” as a substantive basis for refusing patents; on distinguishing commercial exploitation (manufacture, distribution, licensing) from a state’s battlefield use; and on the role of disclosure in assessing the predictability, controllability, and accountability of autonomous functions.The results indicate that, in the context of LAWS the decisive issue for public order/morality is not the abstract “dangerousness” of a technology, but typical market exploitation that may invariably lead to outcomes incompatible with humanity.A well-founded examination of LAWS depends on adequate disclosure of technical features that ensure meaningful human control, limitations on the scope of operation, and appropriate fail-safe mechanisms. In the Ukrainian context, public ordershould be understood as encompassing national security interests, including defence capability and protection of the constitutional order. This understanding provides a framework for balancing the societal value of defensive technologies against the humanitarian and ethical risks associated with LAWS-related inventions, without turning patent offices into general ethical regulators. The article concludes that patent examination in this field must rely on a transparent, case-sensitive assessment of how market exploitation of LAWS aligns with public order, national security, and generally recognised principles of morality.

The comment reviews key positions in the rulings of the Presidium of the Russian Intellectual Property Court (IPC) issued in the period from November, 2024 to June, 2025. The Chamber hears cassation appeals against the decisions of the IPC first instance and deals primarily, but not only, with matters of registration and validity of industrial property rights. Therefore, the regular review covers predominantly substantive requirements for patent and trademark protection, as well as procedural issues both in the administrative adjudicating mechanism at the Patent Office (Rospatent) and at the IPC itself. The current review encompasses a variety of questions related to trademark law, patent law and various procedural matters.

Background. Identification of terminological and practical inconsistencies in the field of patent law in regulatory legal acts, including the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (CC RF) is important for lawmakers, regulators, stakeholders in the pharmaceutical market, and patent holders. Objective: To conduct a comprehensive analysis of Clause 5 of Article 1359 of CC RF, which provides an exception to patent holders’ exclusive rights regarding the compounding of drugs in pharmacies pursuant to physicians’ prescriptions, in terms of its consistency with current pharmaceutical legislation and international legal standards. Material and methods. The methods of historical-legal, semantic-linguistic, and comparative-legal analysis were applied. The Russian regulation was compared with that in the European Union (EU), the United States of America, Japan, Brazil, etc. Additionally, provisions of international agreements, including the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the EU Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, were analyzed. Results. The current wording of Clause 5 of Article 1359 of CC RF was found to suffer from insufficient terminological clarity regarding the concepts of “individual compounding” and “medicinal product”, thus leading to legal uncertainty and potential conflicts with existing pharmaceutical legislation. The analysis of international practices revealed common regulatory approaches to this exception: the individual (personalized) nature of compounding (for a specific patient), mandatory medical prescription, exclusion of industrial-scale manufacturing, and the professional status of the performer (a pharmaceutical specialist). The Russian norm appears to have been borrowed from regulatory models of EU countries. However, in the absence of clear criteria for its application, risks of a broader interpretation arise, including the preparation of active pharmaceutical ingredients, which contradicts the objectives of patent regulation and the current structure of the pharmaceutical market. Conclusion. Clause 5 of Article 1359 of CC RF is designed to protect pharmacy organizations and implements the principle of fair use of patented objects, provided that the medicinal products are lawfully obtained. It may serve as a negotiating tool in cases of drug shortages. To uphold constitutional obligations regarding public health protection and to eliminate legal uncertainty, the norm requires legislative clarification and refinement.

Abstract This study examines the intersection of intellectual property (IP) law, social systems theory and ethical considerations in shaping sustainable research, development and innovation (RDI) policies. It highlights how IP rights incentivize innovation while simultaneously raising ethical concerns and issues of distributive justice, particularly in the context of access to technology and essential goods. The research explores the role of ethical frameworks—including utilitarian, deontological and Rawlsian perspectives—in addressing these tensions and argues for a balanced approach that aligns private incentives with societal welfare. Social systems theory provides a valuable lens for analyzing how cultural, economic, social, and strategic capitals interact to influence RDI sustainability. Case studies in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and digital innovation illustrate the real-world implications of these interactions. The study further considers regulatory mechanisms, such as compulsory licensing and ethical constraints in patent law, as tools to mitigate inequities in access to innovation. Ultimately, the research underscores the need for an integrated, ethically grounded legal framework that fosters both technological advancement and social justice in global RDI policies.

The patent law, supply chain finance level, and corporate cross-regional mergers and acquisitions: A quasi-natural experiment of the fourth amendment to the patent law

A court undertaking an assessment of damages has been a rare thing across most of the history of patent law. The House of Lords decision in General Tire & Rubber Company and Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company [1976] RPC 197 looked like it would provide some certainty. But as an exploration of the archive materials surrounding the Patents Bill shows, contemporaries took an entirely different view of the decision. A historical analysis shows not only the importance of the case but also the confusion it caused and how the proposed remedy of a statutory damages rule might have been worse than the cure.

Recent changes to the Patent Law in Indonesia have sparked discussion regarding efforts to balance pharmaceutical innovation, protection of local industries, and the potential for evergreening practices. This study is a doctrinal research that uses a multi-approach analysis to examine the interaction between these variables in the context of Patent Law Number 65 of 2024. The study draws on literature reviews, theories and concepts related to drug patents, the pharmaceutical industry, the right to affordable medicine, and the evergreening. The research also includes an analysis of relevant laws and regulations, including the Patent Law before and after the amendment, to identify the changes and the underlying legal politics. The results show that the removal of Article 4 (f) of the Patent Law, which previously excluded certain inventions as inventions, may open up opportunities for the evergreening. However, the government argues that the deletion aims to protect local pharmaceutical companies and broaden the definition of invention. This study critically examines these claims, taking into account the readiness of the local pharmaceutical industry to compete with multinational corporations. In addition, there is a need for a strict control mechanism to ensure the validity of the invention in the patent as well as an objective evaluation of the inventive step and its therapeutic value. This study concludes that without adequate planning, the extension of patent protection to minor modifications may prolong commercial dominance of drugs, open opportunities for evergreening practices and ultimately hinder public access to essential and affordable drugs.

The article provides a comparative analysis of the main focus and effectiveness of the sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union on Russia in the technological field. Based on an analysis of Russian and Western patent laws, it is established that the effectiveness of these sanctions is facilitated by the regime of use of inventions established in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which allows foreign patent holders to import finished products rather than establish production in Russia. This has made the development of innovative sectors in the Russian economy directly dependent on the current interests of the West. The article also proposes measures to address this issue at the regulatory level.

Abstract Achieving sustainability transitions requires both legal reforms and changes in production and consumption habits. The ‘Right to Repair’ (RtR) movement supports sustainability by allowing buyers to repair products and extend their lifespan, promoting a circular economy. However, the RtR faces challenges from intellectual property rights (IPR), which can restrict access to spare parts or repair information, raising concerns about potential IPR infringements during repairs. This paper focuses specifically on patent rights and explores the tension between the RtR and patents in the EU context. It examines previously discussed IPR tools relevant for the RtR, like the exhaustion doctrine, which limits intellectual property (IP) after a product is sold, but also takes a step further and considers how compulsory licensing could further support repair rights. The paper argues for adapting patent laws to balance sustainability goals with IP protection, suggesting that both exhaustion and compulsory licensing could help strengthen the RtR while respecting patent holders’ interests.

Patent law and quantum theory

Patent law constitutes a critical component of intellectual property systems, designed to stimulate innovation by conferring exclusive rights upon inventors for limited durations. However, patent protection operates within defined boundaries, making comprehension of eligibility criteria vital for inventors, attorneys, researchers, and policymakers. This study examines eligible and ineligible categories under patent law, analyzing legal frameworks, foundational principles, and modern challenges. Patentable subject matter encompasses innovations qualifying for protection under governing legislation. Most jurisdictions require four fundamental criteria: eligibility as appropriate subject matter, novelty, non-obvious inventive step, and practical utility or industrial applicability. Notably, inventions satisfying novelty, inventiveness, and utility may still face rejection if positioned outside legally recognized eligible categories. This research analyzes eligible domains including industrial processes, machines and apparatus, manufactured products and chemical compositions, technological improvements, computer-implemented inventions, and biotechnological innovations. Business methods previously enjoyed broad protection but now require demonstration of substantial technical contributions beyond abstract concepts. Ineligible categories typically comprise abstract ideas, natural laws and phenomena, aesthetic designs, scientific discoveries, medical treatment methods, ethically problematic inventions, plant and animal varieties, and game rules. Exclusion rationales include preserving fundamental knowledge as public resources, ethical concerns regarding ownership, and recognition that alternative protections like copyright may better suit certain creations. This research demonstrates that distinguishing eligible from ineligible subject matter represents fundamental policy choices balancing innovation incentives against public access to knowledge, competitive markets, and ethical concerns. Patent systems must adapt to technological advancement while maintaining consistency and considering broader implications for innovation policy, economic development, and social welfare KEY WORDS - Patent eligibility, Patentable subject matter, Non-patentable inventions, Intellectual property law, Innovation protection, Statutory exclusions, Biotechnology patents, Emerging technology challenges

The development of generative Artificial Intelligence has created several legal implications in intellectual property law. The most prominent example is DABUS case, in which DABUS – the AI invented by Stephen Thaler created a food container and a light by itself. Afterwards, Thaler tried to name the AI as the inventor of the product and claim the patent by being an employer of the AI. The case was trialled in 16 countries, including the European Union (EU) and South Korea, creating a major debate on the matters of inventorship and patentability. In Vietnam, since the invention of ViGPT, there has also been debates on similar issues. The aim of this paper is to provide Vietnam with solutions to this issue, thus the country can prepare for the phenomenon. This research will analyse and evaluate the DABUS decisions from the EU and South Korea, with comparison to Vietnamese law to answer questions on the inventor of AI-generated works and its patentability. The finding revealed that despite the differences in the law, the interpretation concluded similarly. However, as the direction of legislation in the European Union and South Korea were divergent, it can be beneficial for Vietnam to learn from the experience of both.

Abstract The implementation of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models throughout the drug discovery and development process is made possible thanks to the massive amounts of data on which these models are trained. However, this data is difficult to interpret, compile and access and thus are typically not available to other companies and/or individuals. Moreover, despite the possibility under patent law, to provide protection to AI technologies and drugs created with the assistance of AI (AI-assisted drugs), the data generated within the AI-powered drug discovery process may be shared and accessed by the broader scientific community, since there is the need to include small-scale innovators and public institutions in a scenario where their contribution has been increasingly marginalized in favour of AI training undertaken by big companies. These technical and legal issues result in a societal dilemma that this paper defines as a ‘vicious cycle’ comprised of uncertain proprietary regimes, scarce sharing of data, ineffective AI training, and lack of safe and effective drug candidates. To break this cycle, this paper suggests adopting the Governing Knowledge Commons (GKC) Framework, which is structured according to a series of general questions (‘variables’) that not only find application in case the knowledge resource is completely ‘commonized’, but also where there are co-existing spaces of property and non-property in its governance. Such framework should be tested, focusing on AI platforms in drug discovery, by assessing to what extent AI platforms are being managed, as knowledge resources, and being able to manage further knowledge resources (training data and generated outputs) in a distributed and communal way. Ultimately, this assessment of governance of AI platforms through GKC testing, which in this paper will focus on the well-known AlphaFold AI platform, can contribute identifying promising cases of knowledge commons within drug discovery.