Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Strategy Clearing House

Query: Case law for AI and IP

9 record(s) found.

Member state	Policy type	Details
Australia	Case law for AI and IP	Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 577 Subject matter: Subsistence of copyright in data sheets generated electronically. IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 14 Subject matter: Subsistence of copyright in weekly TV program schedules involving computer generation. Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149 Subject matter: Subsistence of copyright in the compilation of a telephone directory. Commissioner of Patents v Thaler [2022] FCAFC 62 The Full Federal Court unanimously held that an AI cannot be named an inventor in a patent application in Australia. The Deputy Commissioner of Patents was correct to reach the conclusion that, by naming DABUS as the inventor, the application did not comply with reg 3.2C(2)(aa) of the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth). As a result, the decision Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 of the primary judge should be set aside and the orders to lapse the patent application made by the Deputy Commissioner reinstated. Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 On 30 July 2021, the Federal Court found in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 that, for the purposes of the Patents Act 1990, an artificial intelligence (AI) system could be named as an inventor on a patent application. This decision overturned an earlier decision of IP Australia that only a human can be named as an inventor for an Australian patent. Stephen L. Thaler [2021] APO 5 (9 February 2021) The decision of the IP Australia that states that only a human can be named as an inventor for an Australian patent. Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCATrans 199 (11 November 2022) The applicant had sought special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Federal Court to the High Court which is the highest court in the Australian judicial system, the result of which was handed down. The High Court refused the application for special leave, which confirms that an AI system cannot be named as an inventor of a patent under current Australian law. No further appeal is possible.
Canada	Case law for AI and IP	Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing Co Ltd, 30 OR (3d) 520, 1998 CanLII 5513 The court ruled that there are no personality rights in biographies and no proprietary rights to informal conversation or information given in an interview as they are not covered by the Copyright Act and intended for public. Canadian Broadcasting Corp v SODRAC 2003 Inc, 2015 SCC 57, [2015] 3 SCR 615 The Court held that broadcast-incidental copies of musical works are reproductions of such works under section 3(1)(d) of the Copyright Act. Law Society of Upper Canada v CCH Canadian Limited, 2004 SCC13 A group of publishers sued the Law Society of Upper Canada for copyright infringement for providing photocopy services to researchers. The Court unanimously held that the Law Society's practice fell within the bounds of fair dealing. Re Editors' Assn of Canada / Assoc canadienne des réviseurs Certification Order, 2002 CAPPRT 039 Century 21 Canada Limited Partnership v Rogers Communications Inc, 2011 BCSC 1196 Century 21 and two individual real estate brokers sought an injunction and damages against Zoocasa and its parent Rogers due to Zoocasa’s indexing and “webcrawling” of Century 21’s real estate listing. Amel Chamandy / Galerie NuEdge Fine Arts v. Adam Basanta, 500-17-104564-185 Copyright and trademark infringement case related to a project that uses artificial intelligence to automatically generate art images and a database of human created works to filter for AI output that is similar to human created works. The case is still pending.
China	Case law for AI and IP	Decision ZL200410053749.9 regarding Chatbot System right 2015 A case between Shanghai Zhizhen Intelligent Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Apple Inc. regarding whether the "Siri Voice Assistant" infringed the patent for the invention named "Chatbot System". The decision includes a discussion whether the "functional module" description, which is common in the field of artificial intelligence, fulfills the enabling disclosure requirement. Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yingmou Technology Co., Ltd. 2019 A court in the Chinese city of Shenzhen held that an article that was created by an artificial intelligence program benefitted from copyright protection. Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2017) Jing 73 Min Zhong No. 797 Civil Judgment. April 2, 2020 In this case, a sports camera being attached to an air balloon, automatically took videos of the earth surface. When discussing the copyright issues, the Court determined that although the camera was out of human control during the automatic overhead recording process, there still was a human intervention reflected in preselection of a video recording mode, video display format, sensitivity and other parameters of the camera. These parameters were considered to be set in advance, therefore, screenshots selected from the videos taken automatically by the camera constitute photographic works, and the unauthorized use of these pictures by others constitutes an infringement of the copyright of the Plaintiff's photographic work.
China	Case law for AI and IP	(2022) Zhe 0192 Minchu No. 1008 The case relates to a dispute over the alleged infringement of the non-fungible token published on a trading platform. The Hangzhou Internet Court court held that the platform had failed to fulfill its duty of care and to take necessary measures to prevent infringement when it knew or should have known that its user had infringed another party’s rights. As a result, the court ordered the defendant to immediately delete the infringing NFT works published on its platform and to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses.
European Union	Case law for AI and IP	European Patent Office decision of 27 January 2020 on EP 18 275 163 and European Patent Office decision of 27 January 2020 on EP 18 275 174 The decisions concern the refusal of the European patent applications EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174 in which an AI system called "DABUS" was designated as the inventor. The EPO considered provisions of the European Patent Convention (“EPC”) and the term “inventor”. The EPO held that the term refers to a natural person and noted that this appears to be an internationally applicable standard, and that various national courts have issued decisions to this effect. This ruling follows similar stances adopted by other IP offices worldwide. Decision T 0161/18 (Äquivalenter Aortendruck/ARC SEIBERSDORF) of 12.5.2020 In this decision, the European Patent Office did not grant a patent on determining cardiac output by the aid of an artificial neural network. The decision points to a lack of descriptive sufficiency because a subject matter expert could not reproduce the training of an artificial neural network. Decisions J 8/20 and J 9/20 of the Legal Board of Appeal (December 21, 2021) On December 21, 2021 the Legal Board of Appeal announced its decision to dismiss the appeal in cases J 8/20 and J 9/20. The Legal Board of Appeal confirmed the decisions of the Receiving Section of the European Patent Office to refuse the applications EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174, in which an artificial intelligence system called DABUS was designated as inventor in the application forms.
Germany	Case law for AI and IP	Decisions relating to patent applications 10 2019 129 136.4 and 10 2019 129 136.4 In October 2019, the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) received two patent applications named an artificial intelligence machine called DABUS as an inventor (File numbers: 10 2019 128 120.2 and 10 2019 129 136.4). In March 2020, the DPMA rejected both applications, as the declaration of inventorship submitted by the applicant did not meet the requirements set out in the German Patent Act and the German Patent Ordinance. In particular, the decisions states that the inventor pursuant to Sections 6, 37 and 63 of the German Patent Act, as well as Section 7 of the German Patent Ordinance can only be a natural person, i.e. a human being. German Federal Patent Court Decision (November 11, 2021) On November 11, 2021, the court ruled that AI-generated inventions are patentable but a natural person must be named as the inventor. To get around the current legal impediment, the court said the applicant can state that an AI machine was involved.
South Africa	Case law for AI and IP	South African patent Journal on 28 July, 2021 South Africa’s patent office has granted the patent for an invention conceived by an artificial intelligence (AI) inventor, DABUS.
United Kingdom	Case law for AI and IP	United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office decision BL O/741/19 of December 4, 2019 Intellectual Property Office Hearing Officer decision, concerning whether an artificial intelligence, DABUS, could be named as an inventor (Section 7 and 13 of the Patents Act 1977). The application in respect of GB1816909.4 and GB1818161.0 was denied. This ruling follows similar stances adopted by other IP offices worldwide. Thaler v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks [2020] EWHC 2412 (Pat) (21 September 2020) In the decision regarding inventions made by the DABUS artificial intelligence machine, the England & Wales High Court has upheld two decisions of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) deeming the UK patent applications to be withdrawn. Stephen Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks and Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374 The England and Wales Court of Appeal dismissed the DABUS appeal on AI as patent inventor.
United States of America	Case law for AI and IP	United States Patent and Trademark Office Decision of April 27, 2020 on Application No. 16/524,350 In the decision the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that AI systems cannot be listed or credited as inventors on a US patent. The decision stated that an “inventor” under current patent law can only be a “natural person.” This ruling follows similar stances adopted by other IP offices worldwide. Virginia Eastern District Court Decision Thaler v. Hirshfeld US District Court affirmed USPTO's denial of AI system as inventor. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [2022]: Thaler v Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 In August 2021, the Federal Circuit Court issued a precedential opinion, stating that under the Patent Act an AI software system cannot be listed as an “inventor” on a patent application.