UK Intellectual Property Office Research Articles

Patenting artificial intelligence: the High Court’s decision in Emotional Perception

Abstract In Emotional Perception, the EWHC held that an artificial neural network implementing a media recommendation system did not engage the ‘computer program’ exclusion under the Patents Act 1977. Following the ruling, the UK Intellectual Property Office suspended its existing rules on AI patents and issued fresh guidance on the issue.

Intellectual property and artificial intelligence: who is the author?

The economic and legal aspects of the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, their influence on scientific and inventive activity are studied. The role of protection of intellectual property (IP) - (patent and copyright) in different economies and jurisdictions in ensuring the balance of competing interests, identifies existing problems and identifies ways to solve them. AI is seen as one of the most important dual-use technologies, a new challenge for the economy and the legal system, a new phenomenon that has a multiplier effect, a legal phenomenon in the structure of legal relations, a new object for legal regulation. AI is able to generate and create various works - science, literature and art. These circumstances raise problems of recognition of authorship, the possibility of authors to dispose of their rights and their use of mechanisms for legal protection of IP objects. The main provisions of the Resolution of the European Parliament of October 20, 2020 on intellectual property rights in the development of artificial intelligence technologies (2020/2015 (INI)), the Resolution of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) 2020 on the inventory of inventions using AI. The analysis of the legislative and law enforcement practice of the European Patent Office (EPO), the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), regional and international documents on the regulation of AI and IP, provides an opportunity to form a unified approach to interpretation of the criteria of protection of the results of AI activities in different jurisdictions, to apply the mechanisms of legal protection of IP objects in the national legislation, emphasizes the importance of IP policy for national security

Artificial intelligence and intellectual property: copyright and patents—a response by the CREATe Centre to the UK Intellectual Property Office’s open consultation

Artificial intelligence and intellectual property: copyright and patents—a response by the CREATe Centre to the UK Intellectual Property Office’s open consultation

Legal Issues and Solutions to Improve the Standard Essential Patents Ecosystem: Competition, Transparency, and Frameworks. Associate Professor Guido Noto La Diega’s Response to the Call for Views 'Standard Essential Patents and Innovation' (UK Intellectual Property Office 2022)

Legal Issues and Solutions to Improve the Standard Essential Patents Ecosystem: Competition, Transparency, and Frameworks. Associate Professor Guido Noto La Diega’s Response to the Call for Views 'Standard Essential Patents and Innovation' (UK Intellectual Property Office 2022)

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGIES: ANALYSIS OF PATENT TRENDS

Based on the analysis of the Reports of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the patent landscape in the field of AI technology was studied. The definition of AI is given, inventive and patent activity on AI technologies, companies, inventors-patent owners and geographical regions are shown, forecast estimations are given, the importance of IP in ensuring national security is emphasized. According to the study, the number of published patent applications related to AI has increased by 400% over the last decade, and the number of patent applications using AI technology filed in the United States between 2002 and 2018 has doubled. In 2020, the United States and Europe are leaders in computer technology, but growth is provided by Asia. However, the United States is the world’s leading country of origin for applications for inventions in this field. This reflects the strengths of the United States in core software technologies (operating systems, databases, cloud computing), basic AI (neural networks, deep learning, rule-based systems), three-dimensional systems, and the healthcare sector. Annual European patent applications for AI have grown tenfold over the last decade to more than 800 applications in 2020. At the same time, the contribution of American applicants to the overall submission of AI applications decreased, and the number of AI registration applications from Chinese applicants increased more than 10 times. The United States is losing its early advantage in AI innovation within the country. It is concluded that AI is one of the most important dual-use technologies, which has a multiplier effect, transforms the economy and society and promotes global digital transformation. AI is now seen as a new challenge for the economy and the legal system, a new phenomenon, a legal phenomenon in the structure of legal relations, a new object of regulation.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: PROBLEMS OF REGULATION

The economic and legal aspects of the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, their influence on scientific and inventive activity are studied. The role of protection of intellectual property (IP) – (patent and copyright) in ensuring the balance of competing interests, identified problems and identified ways to solve them. AI is seen as one of the most important dual-use technologies, a new challenge for the economy and the legal system, a new phenomenon that has a multiplier effect, a legal phenomenon in the structure of legal relations, a new object for legal regulation. AI is able to generate and create various works – science, literature and art. These circumstances raise problems of recognition of authorship, the possibility of authors to dispose of their rights and their use of mechanisms for legal protection of IP objects. The main provisions of the Resolution of the European Parliament of October 20, 2020 on intellectual property rights in the field of artificial intelligence technologies (2020/2015 (INI)), the Resolution of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) 2020 on the inventory of inventions using AI. An analysis of the legislative and law enforcement practices of the European Patent Office (EPO), the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), regional and international documents on the regulation of AI and IP, designed to form a unified approach to interpretation criteria for the protection of the results of AI activities in different jurisdictions, the use of mechanisms for the legal protection of IP objects, to emphasize the importance of IP policy for national security.

IPO Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Call for Views Copyright

In response to the UK Intellectual Property Office’s call for views on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property, this paper by the Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre addresses the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on exceptions in copyright law. Response focus on balancing the protection of the rights of copyright-holders as against the need for a variety of large data inputs from international sources for ethical, robust and innovative AI development. This paper argues that AI developers may benefit from the quotation exception as a form of ‘global mandatory fair use’, whilst calls for enhanced collective licensing arrangements to ensure proper remuneration for copyright-holders.

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: The View of The British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA)

Between September and November 2020, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) ran a consultation about the implications Artificial Intelligence (AI) may have for Intellectual Property (IP) policy, as well as the impact IP may have for AI. This response was prepared on behalf of the British and Irish Law Education and Technology Association (BILETA) by Prof Dinusha Mendis, Associate Prof Guido Noto La Diega, Dr Felipe Romero-Moreno, and Dr Hiroko Onishi. BILETA was formed in April 1986 to promote, develop and communicate high-quality research and knowledge on technology law and policy to organisations, governments, professionals, students and the public. This submission focuses on the maincopyright and trade mark issues in AI.

When the Invented Becomes the Inventor: Can, and Should AI Systems be Granted Inventorship Status for Patent Applications?

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) systems have become vastly more sophisticated since the term was first used in the 1950s. Through the advent of machine learning and artificial neural networks, computers utilizing AI technology have become so advanced that a team of attorneys in the United Kingdom claim that their AI machine, DABUS, actually created patentable inventions. The team went so far as to file patent applications with the European Patent Office,the UK Intellectual Property Office, and the US Patent and Trademark Office. All applications named DABUS as the inventor. This sparked a heated debate within academic and legal communities that centered around whether AI can be an inventor, and, if so, what this might mean for the current state of patent law. This paper discusses the purposes of patent law through a brief look at its history, in an effort to highlight why patent law as it stands may no longer be one- size-fits-all. It considers the evolution of AI systems to explain how one might determine that a machine could be “creative” and therefore justifiably named as inventor. It surveys popular opinions and organizes them on a spectrum ranging from those who believe that patent law should stay as it is and that AI cannot be an inventor, to those who, more dramatically, advocate for the abolition of patent protection for AI inventions. This paper suggests that legislators be proactive in traversing this technological minefield rather than reactive, as technology will continue to outpace, and trample, law if left to its own machinations.

The Economic and Innovation Impacts of Trade Secrets

Trade Secrets are a flexible innovation tool that are used across sectors and types of firms. This report summarises and critiques the publicly available academic and grey economic literature on trade secrets and highlights key innovation aspects. Developed for the UK Intellectual Property Office as a research paper, the report finds that Trade secrets can both enable or hinder innovation. Other key points: Trade secrets are particularly important to UK firms in the R&D services, tech, and across manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors. Larger firms rely on trade secrets more than smaller firms. Trade secrets can be highly valuable firm assets, although most trade secrets are not. Firms choose trade secrets to maintain a competitive advantage by avoiding the disclosure associated with other types of IPR. However, trade secrets are vulnerable to reverse engineering and misappropriation or theft. Cybertheft and economic espionage are increasing concerns. Trade secrets serve as a substitute or complement to patents. Most trade secrets cover non-patentable innovation such as marketing and organisational innovations. Trade secrets support innovation but also restrict knowledge flows and labour mobility. Stronger policy benefits existing trade secrets holders and encourages investment in R&D, yet reduces future innovation and creates barriers to entry. However, many questions remain and the empirical evidence base for trade secrecy is weak. This report finds that further work is needed to develop an evidence base for trade secrets, and that exploration of key themes such as the interaction of trade secrets with patentability could better inform policy.

Can a Patent Be Granted for an AI-Generated Invention?

Abstract Three patent offices had to answer the question of whether a patent can be granted for an invention for which an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system called DABUS was named as inventor. All applications were dismissed, but for different reasons. While the European Patent Office focused on formal rules, the UK Intellectual Property Office considered more substantive aspects, and the US Patent and Trademark Office relied on statutory language. From a policy perspective, the decisions find support in the fact that there is no clear consensus for AI to be recognized as an inventor, and that difficult questions would ensue if this were accepted. From a doctrinal perspective, the decisions do not rule out the patentability of AI-assisted inventions in general, as it remains possible to designate a human inventor when AI has merely facilitated the inventive process. This leaves the question of who should own a patent for an AI-generated invention, if patentability for such inventions is considered desirable. A possible solution could be to grant ownership directly to the company operating or owning the AI.

Intelligence: The Artificial Way

With much of the world in lockdown, and politicians (and others) claiming that they must rely on the common sense (or intelligence) of the public to ensure that we emerge from the current restrictions with some economy remaining, I thought I would look this month at three patent law decisions – one from the UK Intellectual Property office, one from the European Patent Office and one from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), all dealing with the same issue – an invention purportedly made by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) machine (DABUS) and all reaching broadly similar conclusions.

Patents Court holds machine gun ammunition bag patent infringed but refuses damages inquiry

Excel-Eucan Ltd v Source Vagabond Systems Ltd [2019] EWHC 3175 (Pat) (21 November 2019) The Patents Court held that the defendant’s bag for holding linked rounds of ammunition fell within the scope of a patent licensed from the claimant, under the doctrine of equivalents, but refused an inquiry as to damages, since no loss could be identified. HHJ Melissa Clarke found the bag constituted an immaterial variant after applying the ‘Actavis’ questions (Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly & Co [2017] UKSC 48). Furthermore, the judge found that the bag was royalty-bearing pursuant to the licence agreement, even if the patent were eventually determined by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) to be invalid. HHJ Clarke refused an application for an inquiry as to damages. Due to the absence of any identification of the relevant type of damage flowing from the breach of the licence agreement, the judge decided that ordering such an inquiry would be ‘disproportionate and outwith the overriding objective’.

Submission to the IPO Consultation: Post-Implementation Review of 2014 Copyright Changes

Submission to the UK Intellectual Property Office in relation to their post-implementation review of the 2014 copyright reforms. Our submission includes analysis of the revised preservation copying exception for libraries, archives and museums (Part B); fair dealing for quotation, illustration for instruction, and caricature, parody or pastiche (Part C); and schemes for orphaned works (Part D). This submission constitutes our own views and is not the official response of our universities.

“I should like you to see them some time”

PurposeThe inability of cultural institutions to make available digital reproductions of collected material highlights a shortcoming with the existing copyright framework in a number of national jurisdictions. Overlapping efforts to remedy the situation were recently undertaken in the form of EU Directive 2012/28/EU, the “Orphan Works” directive, and a new licensing scheme introduced by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The purpose of this paper is to empirically evaluate both the EU and UK policy approaches, drawing on data collected during a live rights clearance simulation.Design/methodology/approachThe authors attempted to clear rights in a sample of 432 items contained in the mixed-media Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks collection held by the University of Glasgow Library. Data were collected on the resource costs incurred at each stage of the rights clearance process, from initial audit of the collection, through to compliance with diligent search requirements under EU Directive 2012/28/EU and the UKIPO licensing procedures.FindingsComparing results against the two current policy options for the use of orphan works, the authors find that the UKIPO licensing scheme offers a moderate degree of legal certainty but also the highest cost to institutions (the cost of diligent search in addition to licence fees). The EU exception to copyright provides less legal certainty in the case of rightsholder re-emergence, but also retains high diligent search costs. Both policy options may be suitable for institutions wishing to make use of a small number of high-risk works, but neither approach is currently suitable for mass digitisation.Research limitations/implicationsThis rights clearance exercise is focussed on a single case study with unique properties (with a high proportion of partial works embedded in a work of bricolage). Consequently, the results obtained in this study reflect differences from simulation studies on other types of orphan works. However, by adopting similar methodological and reporting standards to previous empirical studies, the authors can compare rights clearance costs between collections of different works.Originality/valueThis study is the first to empirically assess the 2014 UK orphan works licensing scheme from an institutional perspective. The authors hope that it will contribute to an understanding of how policy could more effectively assist libraries and archives in their digitisation efforts.

What Constitutes Evidence for Copyright Policy?

The Symposium ‘What constitutes evidence for copyright policy?’ was part of the ESRC Festival of Social Science 2012. It was organised by Professors Ruth Towse and Martin Kretschmer as a cooperative initiative between the Centre for IP Policy and Management at Bournemouth University (CIPPM) and CREATe (the RCUK Copyright Centre at the University of Glasgow) with the aim of exploring the concept of evidence as employed in copyright policy making, and challenge the concept from a social science perspective. The aim was to produce an orientation point in the contested debate about ‘evidence-based’ copyright reform. The Symposium took the form of four panels with specific professional and disciplinary groups: policy-makers, stakeholders, social scientists and law professors with an open session to enable wider audience participation. Each panel speaker was asked to give a short opening statement, setting out what constitutes evidence from their disciplinary perspective, using the UK Intellectual Property Office’s guidance document on standards of evidence (‘clear, verifiable and able to be peer-reviewed’) as a starting point for their contribution. These proceeding (published as CREATe Working Paper No. 1) offer an introductory essay by Martin Kretschmer and Ruth Towse, edited transcripts of the discussion and a bibliography.

No riddles or ambiguities

This section is dedicated to the review of ideas, articles, books, films and other media. It will include replies (and rejoinders) to articles, the evaluation of new ideas or proposals, and reviews of books and articles both directly and indirectly related to intellectual property law. There are some books everyone seems to own. The UK trade mark practitioners Amanda Michaels's and Andrew Norris's Practical Approach to Trade Mark Law certainly belongs to this category. Already in its fifth edition, the book offers 496 pages of UK (and EU) trade mark law and passing off for the interested reader's continued appreciation. Indeed, such is the ubiquity of this well-established textbook that most owners of its previous editions will not ask whether they should buy the next edition but merely wonder when it is going to be published. Written by two seasoned and well-known practitioners, this has always been a book for practitioners: Amanda Michaels, a barrister and an Appointed Person at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), is known for, among other things, her trade mark expertise. Andrew Norris is a barrister and a law tutor. The authors have changed neither their winning format nor their concise and non-pompous writing style. There are ‘no riddles or ambiguities’ as Robin Jacob puts it in the book's foreword. Even though the 5th edition appears at first glance to be somewhat more voluminous than the 4th edition, the page count has only increased by about 30 pages overall. It is obvious that the authors have tried to keep the book as compact and digestible as possible—and they have been successful.

Navigating the Maze of IP/regulatory Rights in the EU: the Complex Interaction Between the SPC and Pediatric Regulations

Pharmaceutical Patent AnalystVol. 2, No. 2 Hot TopicNavigating the maze of IP/regulatory rights in the EU: the complex interaction between the SPC and Pediatric RegulationsMaria Isabel Manley & Marina VickersMaria Isabel Manley* Author for correspondenceBristows LLP, 100 Victoria Embankment, London EC4Y 0DH, UK. Search for more papers by this authorEmail the corresponding author at marie.manley@bristows.com & Marina VickersBristows LLP, 100 Victoria Embankment, London EC4Y 0DH, UKSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:26 Feb 2013https://doi.org/10.4155/ppa.13.7AboutSectionsView ArticleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail View articleReferences1 Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products.Google Scholar2 Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20.EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.Google Scholar3 Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Ltd and Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd v. Warner-Lambert Company LLC, EWHC 3715 (Pat) (2012).Google Scholar4 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal Products (now repealed and replaced by Regulation (EC) No 469/2009).Google Scholar5 Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp (previously Merck and Co) v. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, Case C-125/10 (2011).Google Scholar6 EI Du Pont de Nemours & Co v. UK Intellectual Property Office, EWCA Civ 966 (2009).Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 2, No. 2 Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics Downloaded 90 times History Published online 26 February 2013 Published in print March 2013 Information© Future Science LtdFinancial & competing interests disclosureThe authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.PDF download

Extending the UK Bolar exception to innovators?

On 24 October 2012, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) launched a formal consultation on amending the research and Bolar exception as contained in s 60(5) of the Patents Act 1977 to include use of innovative drugs in clinical and field trials.

Evaluating the Impact of Parody on the Exploitation of Copyright Works: An Empirical Study of Music Video Content on YouTube

The status of parody and related derivative works within the UK copyright framework lacks clarity and has been recommended for further policy study in two recent independent reviews: the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property in 2006 and the more recent Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth published in 2011. This recent review highlights the dual importance of parodic works both as a form of cultural expression and as a potential source of innovation and growth. A key recommendation of Hargreaves is for the UK to introduce a new fair dealing copyright exception for parody. However, a shortage of empirical data renders policy intervention in this area difficult. The issue is complicated by the inherently creative nature of parody, ambiguity about its definition and the multiplicity of economic and legal approaches that may be applied. In December 2011, following an open call to tender, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) commissioned research from the Media School and the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) at Bournemouth University to undertake research into the potential effects for rightsholders, creators and audiences of introducing a copyright exception for Parody in the UK. This document reports the key findings of the empirical study carried out by Dr. Kris Erickson and research assistants at Bournemouth University. The primary purpose of this research is to assess the potential for economic damage to rightsholders should an exception for parody be introduced. First, it provides an overview of the online video market, the field site, and the methodology used. A sample of 8299 user-generated music video parodies was identified relating to the top-100 charting music singles in the UK for the year 2011. The main body of the report discusses the empirical findings that emerge from the study