Future of Intellectual Property Law

How Emerging Technologies are Shaping The Future of Intellectual Property Law?

Rate this post

The selection of the latest, developing technologies that affect intellectual property is a subjective matter. Partially because the topic of discussion is artificial intelligence (AI), specifically generative AI, for this paper. Why? AI has transformed both the world and law in general. Despite their rejection of AI, no lawyer or legal expert can dismiss it. A large number of individuals are investigating AI and determining where it could be integrated into their legal procedures. Unfortunately, a few individuals still grab headlines about AI disasters by sharing private information and citing unsupported case law. Why?

Generative AI

While IP is affected by generative AI, U.S. patent law and policy also affects it.

Revised guidance was released by the USPTO in July to patent examiners and practitioners who are evaluating the possibility of patenting AI-based claims. Under 35. The law, as well as U.S.C. 101, stipulates that patent eligibility “exceptions” or features that are more important than an exception or computer use must not be directed to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena. Earlier directives typically presented the multi-level examination for patent legitimacy, as well as multiple instances of computer implementation. Earlier guidance and examples of patent eligibility determinations for AI-related claims are now included in the revised USPTO guidance.

A generative AI question has been raised in the courts at least once by the Federal Circuit, under the governing law. Is it possible to identify an individual who invented generative AI in patent applications? Presently, “no”, which is incorrect. In other words, the legal precedent of generative AI overcame the debates surrounding who was considered an “inventor” or “person” in 35 states. The purpose of U.S.C. 100 was to limit the inclusion of natural persons.

Although there are some intriguing issues with the IP, the implications of generative AI may be most prominent in terms of copyright. According to a California Judge, the fair use doctrine is not yet applicable to AI tools. Why? Some uses of copyrighted works may be permitted under the fair use doctrine without the owners’ consent. As per the judge, the challenges involve cross-border issues of fair use and copyright law. The fair use of third-party works as inputs is a subject of concern in the training. Why? Missing likenesses or existing works may be a violation of copyrights in the output. AI-generated images and music are becoming increasingly common subject of copyright infringement claims.

Proponents of AI models argue that copyrighted material should be discarded in its entirety and replaced with something new. If the content is new, then who has that ownership? Human authorship is a requirement in U.S. copyright law, but AI-generated content would not meet the criteria as it was created without human involvement and not by humans. Essentially, the content in any given situation is not determined by human judgment. The content may encompass not only conventional creative arts but also extensive commercial initiatives like marketing campaigns. The U.S. is taking an interest in the matter…. Copyright Office and courts.

When it comes to trademarks, the possibility of generative AI usage or output causing confusion with a trademarked brand is less apparent than that of copy righteous works. The potential of generative AI is being explored in various fields, including legal briefing and social media trends. How this could work? In one case, social media user utilized AI tools to generate images of their pets in a manner similar to an original content producer’s style by entering their pet ‘Secret Name into the AI prompt. In some cases, the resulting images even included trademarks of the original content producer. A trademark owner has claimed that generative AI diminished its mark by assigning it to low quality, unappealing or offensive images. Despite its benefits, the trademark community must remain vigilant for potential issues as generative AI generates an enormous amount of work.

Generative AI can be utilized by trademark holders however. Nevertheless. Using generative AI, marketing materials and placements can be created with the inputs that determine the most effective aspects. How would the utilization of licenses from trademark holders for generative AI tools be enhanced by intentionally attaching marks to controlled outputs produced by an artificial intelligence tool?

Quantum Computing

Quantum computing technology uses quantum-mechanical phenomena such as electron states for the storage and processing of information in quantum bits (“qubits”, pronounced cue-bits). Quantum computers would be the ultimate transformative tool in solving boundless complex mathematical problems.

Accordingly, quantum computing remains an area of much public and private attention and funding. But viable quantum computing will require a host of harmonized developments.

Besides the hardware and operational technology, which are significant in nature, the algorithms developed for exploiting the versatility of quantum computing can also be considered protectable IP. The algorithm can, for instance, constitute a patentable improvement over the art. The written code can also be copyrighted. In some instances, the developers might just keep their algorithms as trade secrets. And the software and techniques could be unique or proprietary in nature, for which trademarks are essential in claiming ownership over the invention.

Quantum computing is also unique in its applicability to national security in the age of cyber threats. Quantum cryptography and other quantum data encryption or protection tools will enable previously unimaginable data and system security. Efficient deployment among critical infrastructure systems—telecommunications, healthcare, power supplies, banking transactions, etc.—will be a significant priority. However, IP ownership issues across all of a quantum tool’s features may need resolution before protected aspects may be used at all.