Tag: technology

1
The NFT Collection: The rise of NFTs – Copyright strikes back? (Part 3)
2
The NFT Collection: A Brave NFT World – A Regulatory Review of NFT’s (Part 2)
3
The NFT Collection: NFT Basics and Opportunities (Part 1)
4
Australia Re-Aligned With Major Jurisdictions for AI-Based Inventorship
5
Australian Appeal Case Revisits Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions
6
Should Copyright Exceptions Apply to AI Mined Data? And Other Questions Raised Under the UKIPO Consultation on Artificial Intelligence and Copyright and Patents
7
Cosmetic Blunder – All UK Instagram Content Must Make Clear On the Face of it that It’s an Ad, Including Reels and Stories
8
AI Can Invent – Australia is First to Recognise Non-Human Inventorship
9
Finally – German Constitutional Court Clears the Way for the Unified Patent Court
10
Just One More Thing For Swatch and Apple to Fight About

The NFT Collection: The rise of NFTs – Copyright strikes back? (Part 3)

In a recent post, we examined the regulatory landscape of NFTs (see here). In our third of our series on NFTs, we will address the intellectual property concerns often highlighted by NFT critics.

Read More

The NFT Collection: A Brave NFT World – A Regulatory Review of NFT’s (Part 2)

In a recent alert, we painted the big NFT picture, highlighting what a non-fungible token (NFT) means and the opportunities they present (see here). In this second part of the NFT series, we will take a deeper look at local regulatory control (or lack thereof) in this uncharted territory.

Read More

The NFT Collection: NFT Basics and Opportunities (Part 1)

NFTs have gone mainstream. But what are NFTs? Should your business develop its own NFT? How are they regulated? In The NFT Collection series of alerts, we will delve into these questions to help your business understand this new technology.

Read More

Australia Re-Aligned With Major Jurisdictions for AI-Based Inventorship

In July 2021, Australia was thrust into the spotlight as a favourable country to patent AI-created inventions as a result of the Australian Federal Court’s decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 – see our previous coverage here.

At first instance, the Court construed “inventor” as including “a person or thing that invents”.1 The decision was an appeal from a Patent Office hearing where the Office rejected a patent application in the name of Stephen L. Thaler as the creator of the “inventor”, AI system (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS)). As DABUS had autonomously generated the invention, for the purposes of the patent application Dr Thaler derived title to the invention from DABUS.

Read More

Australian Appeal Case Revisits Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions

The vexed issue of ‘patent eligibility’ for computer implemented inventions has raised its head again in Australia, this time in the Full Court of the Australian Federal Court decision of Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 202. The decision expands upon principles for assessing the eligibility of computer-implemented technology, but the line between assessing eligibility and other aspects of patentability remains blurred.

Read More

Should Copyright Exceptions Apply to AI Mined Data? And Other Questions Raised Under the UKIPO Consultation on Artificial Intelligence and Copyright and Patents

On Friday 29 October, the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (the “UKIPO”) launched a consultation entitled “Artificial Intelligence and IP: copyright and patents” (see here), which closes 11:45pm on 7 January 2022 (London time). The consultation forms part of the UK government’s ‘National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategy’ (the “Strategy”), which followed the government’s 2017 Industrial Strategy publication.

The aim of the consultation is to determine the right incentives for Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) development and innovation, while continuing to promote human creativity and innovation.

Read More

Cosmetic Blunder – All UK Instagram Content Must Make Clear On the Face of it that It’s an Ad, Including Reels and Stories

The UK Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has found that an influencer’s Instagram reel and story breached the advertising regulations. All advertising made by influencers must make it clear that it is an advert, otherwise brands, even if they have no control, will be held jointly responsible.

Read More

AI Can Invent – Australia is First to Recognise Non-Human Inventorship

The Australian Federal Court recently handed down its first-instance judgement in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 where the central issue considered was whether an artificial intelligence (AI) system could be an ‘inventor’ for the purposes of the Australian Patents Act 1990 (Act) and its corresponding regulations. The Court found that an AI system can be an inventor – where ‘inventor’ may be construed broadly to include a ‘person or thing that invents’1. This decision puts Australia in the spotlight as a favourable country to patent AI-created inventions – for now. Given the subject-matter and controversy generated by this decision, an appeal to the Full Federal Court is almost certain.

Read More

Finally – German Constitutional Court Clears the Way for the Unified Patent Court

Today the German Federal Constitutional Court rejected two applications for an interim injunction against the German implementation of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). The outcome of the decisions is a clear yes to a European patent court system!

Read More

Just One More Thing For Swatch and Apple to Fight About

Since the launch of the Apple Watch in 2015, Swatch, a well-known Swiss watch manufacturer, has been involved in a number of trade mark disputes against Apple regarding their overlapping product markets.

These disputes have concerned the marks ‘I-WATCH’ and ‘I-SWATCH’, ‘TICK DIFFERENT’ and ‘THINK DIFFERENT’ and, more recently, the mark ‘ONE MORE THING’.

Read More

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.