scholarly journals Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: The Issues of the Legal Regulation of Patent Relations

Legal Concept ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 48-54
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Kupchina
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights Protection

Introduction: in the paper, the author analyzed the current problems associated with the use of artificial intelligence in the field of intellectual property. Thanks to the active introduction of this technology in many areas of human activity, there is a rapid growth of innovative processes. On the one hand, such active improvement of the computer technology system creates a favorable environment for the development of economic, political and social relations. On the other hand, however, the potential for the further development of artificial intelligence is of serious concern in the scientific community. In particular, modern digital technologies are developing much faster than the legal framework designed to regulate them is improving. In this regard, the first branch of law that has faced the greatest difficulties is intellectual property law, since it is a branch of law directly related to innovation processes. The purpose of the research is achieved by solving a number of tasks: to determine the role of artificial intelligence as a “subject” of patent relations, as well as the boundaries of responsibility for patent infringement by AI. The methodology is based on a theoretical approach to the study of the legal framework in the field of intellectual property. Based on the analysis of the theoretical data obtained, the author provides the examples of patent violations related to the use of artificial intelligence technology, as well as highlights some modern approaches to solving this problem. The results of the research can be used to determine the key goals and objectives in the law enforcement, research, as well as in educational and teaching activities, in particular, during lectures and seminars on courses in intellectual property law, copyright and patent law. Conclusions: the development of artificial intelligence technologies is central to the development of better intellectual property management systems. The development of new doctrines for new technologies, the modification of the existing patent system, as well as the changes in the policy of intellectual property rights protection contribute to the effective development of innovative processes and the improvement of the legal system as a whole.

Intellectual Property Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lionel Bently ◽  
Brad Sherman ◽  
Dev Gangjee ◽  
Phillip Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Trade Mark Law

Intellectual Property Law provides a detailed analysis of intellectual property law with reference to a wide range of academic opinion, giving a broad context for exploring the key principles of the subject. In this fifth edition, the introduction has been updated to take account of Brexit. Important developments covered include the introduction of a doctrine of equivalents into UK patent law, the reforms of EU trade mark law (particularly with respect to ‘representation’ of marks, and the ‘functionality exclusions’), and the development of the concept of ‘communication to the public’ by the CJEU. The book covers a number of areas of intellectual property law including copyright, patents, the legal regulation of designs, trade marks and passing off, confidential information, and litigation and remedies. The volume includes a new chapter on the tort of misuse of private information.

From Market Access to Cumulative Innovation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Kuenzler
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Step Test ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights Protection ◽  
Property Rights Protection ◽  
Production Output

This chapter argues for a reinvigorated role of the market access doctrine and references a number of important antitrust and intellectual property law decisions in which courts have given priority to market access. It finds a novel function for market access to play within antitrust and intellectual property law liability: courts that grant plaintiffs access to a defendant’s production output should refer to a three-step test under which they inquire (1) whether the inventor, through first-mover advantages, has reaped a sufficient reward such that contractual or intellectual property rights protection would no longer be required to facilitate innovation, (2) whether competitors were able to challenge the proprietary platform’s position in the market without the possibility of granting access, and (3) whether competitors seeking to benefit from market access will make use of it to facilitate the introduction of new goods rather than merely to copy the initial invention.

scholarly journals Intellectual property law in the field of sports: specifics of manifestations and features of legal regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (69) ◽  
pp. 530-546
Author(s):  
Evgen Kharytonov ◽  
Olena Kharytonova ◽  
Maxym Tkalych ◽  
Inna Bolokan ◽  
Hanna Samilo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Sports Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Wide Range

The article aims to explore the relationships that arise with respect to intellectual property rights in sports. The objectives of the article are to establish points of contact between intellectual property law and sports, as well as a detailed analysis of relevant public relations in terms of intellectual property law and sports law. To achieve the objectives of the article, the authors used a number of scientific methods, among which the main methods are analysis, synthesis and comparative-legal method. The authors of the study concluded that modern sport is developing in close intertwining with intellectual property rights, because only in this way can a sports spectacle be conveyed to a wide range of spectators and consumers in a broad sense. In addition, the range of points of contact between intellectual property and sports law is constantly growing and such can now be called not only patents and trademarks in sports, but also copyright, "image" rights, know-how in sports and the like.

scholarly journals Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-98
Author(s):  
Swapnil Tripathi ◽  
Chandni Ghatak
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Human Intervention ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Artificial Intelligence Systems

Artificial intelligence systems have been gaining widespread momentum in today’s progressing tech-savvy world. With sophisticated technologies being incorporated in the same, it is only a matter of time these systems start to produce marvelous inventions without human intervention of any kind. This brings forth pertinent questions concerning Intellectual Property Rights, (IPR) for, it challenges not only traditional notions of concepts such as patents and copyrights, but also leads to the emergence of questions related to the regulation of such creations amidst others. This paper seeks to provide insight into the expanding scope of IPR laws and artificial intelligence, along with the inevitable challenges it brings from a worldwide lens on the matter. It also attempts to provide suggestions transcending IPR, and seeks to address questions concerning criminal liability for the content created by such technologies.

AI as a Legal Person?

2021 ◽  
pp. 419-440
Author(s):  
Eliza Mik
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Computer Science ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Popular Press ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Legal Personhood ◽  
Exponential Increase ◽  
Technical Terms

Cyclical advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are usually accompanied by theories advocating the granting of legal personhood to sophisticated, autonomous computers. This chapter criticizes such theories as incorrect—a possible result of legal scholars being seduced by incomprehensible technical terminology, sensationalistic stories in the popular press, and ‘creative’ photo filters that transform our faces into animals. Discussions as to when computers should be recognized as persons are, logically, outside of the scope of intellectual property law. The granting of legal personhood is not premised on the existence of consciousness, intelligence, or creativity. Recognizing an entity as a legal person is a normative choice dictated by commercial expediency, not the result of fulfilling any technical criteria. While it is necessary to acknowledge the blurring of borders between art and (computer) science, as well as the increase in the technological sophistication of the tools used by authors and inventors, it is also necessary to state that even an exponential increase in ‘computer creativity’ will not sever the link between the computer and its user. Before discarding the idea of legal personhood for ‘creative algorithms’ once and for all, the chapter explores the relationships between autonomy and creativity. In particular, it places technical terms such as ‘AI’ and ‘autonomy’ in their original context and criticizes uninformed attempts to imbue them with normative connotations.

scholarly journals The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Basic Work ◽  
Freedom Of Action

A number of doctrines in modern copyright and patent law attempt to strikesome balance between the rights of original developers and the rights ofsubsequent improvers. Both patents and copyrights are limited in durationand in scope. Each of these limitations provides some freedom of action tosubsequent improvers. Improvers are free to use material that is in thepublic domain because the copyright or patent has expired. They are free toskirt the edges of existing intellectual property rights, for example bytaking the ideas but not the expression from a copyrighted work or"designing around" the claims of a patent. However, improvers cannot alwaysavoid the intellectual property rights of the basic work on which they wishto improve. Some improvements fall within the scope of the preexistingintellectual property right, either because of an expansive definition ofthat right or because economic or technical necessity requires that theimprover hew closely to the work of the original creator in some basicrespect. Here, the improver is at the mercy of the original intellectualproperty owner, unless there is some separate right that expressly allowscopying for the sake of improvement.

scholarly journals SCIENCE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW: CONCEPTS, FEATURES AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT

2021 ◽  
pp. 47-51
Author(s):  
А. Kodynets
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Scientific School ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Scientific Schools ◽  
Information Law ◽  
National University ◽  
Research Centres

The article explores the concepts, features and directions for the development of intellectual property science at the present stage. The basic scientific schools of intellectual property law are analysed, the specifics of their formation and genesis are considered. The article emphasizes that the science of intellectual property law is a system of knowledge and theoretical ideas about the laws of legal regulation of relations in the field of protection of intellectual and creative activities, interpretation of legal norms and the results of analysis and generalization of their application. As intellectual property right, the science of intellectual property law is a relatively young field in the legal system; however, it already has a long history of development, well-known representatives and scientific schools, including those pertaining to Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. The development of intellectual property science in Ukraine is based on several scientific schools in Kyiv, Odessa, Lviv and Kharkiv, which are represented by powerful research centres and educational institutions. The Kyiv School of Intellectual Property is formed by two research centres: the Department of Intellectual Property and Information Law of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv and the Research Institute of Intellectual Property of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. The origin and development of the science of intellectual property law in Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv is associated with the figure of the famous domestic scientist O.A. Hills. Since 2013, the Department of Intellectual Property and Information Law has been operating at the Faculty of Law of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. At the current stage, the Department of Intellectual Property and Information Law jointly with the Scientific and Educational Centre for Intellectual Property of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv make a powerful centre of the development of intellectual property law science in Ukraine. Keywords: intellectual property, science, methodology, legal category, scientific school, scientist.

scholarly journals Heuristic Interventions in the Study of Intellectual Property

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Silbey
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Social Practice ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Economic Analysis Of Law ◽  
Law Schools ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Social

In this Essay, I review and elaborate on Dan's Burk's On the Sociology of Patenting with three "heuristic interventions" for the study of intellectual property law. These interventions derive from sociology and anthropology, and to some extent also from critical literary theory. Unoriginal in the social sciences, these heuristic interventions remain largely original to the study of law within law schools and traditional legal scholarship (as opposed to the study of law from within the social sciences and humanities). Burk joins a small but growing group of legal scholars, reaching beyond legal doctrinal analysis and the economic analysis of law to explain intellectual property law as a social practice. The interventions he begins and this essay explains in further depth reframe the understanding or analysis of intellectual property (1) from individuals to institutions, (2) from causation to explanation and (3) in the context of the domestication of IP in contemporary social and political culture. In this way, Burk's Article and this essay demonstrate how law (not only intellectual property or patent law) is a social practice both reflecting and forming social structures, the understanding of which requires attention to organization and culture as much or more than statutes, cases, administrative filings, and economic theory.

scholarly journals Certain aspects of possible codification of legislation of intellectual property law

2021 ◽  
pp. 108-118
Author(s):  
Olena Shtefan
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Independent Branch

Keywords: recodification of the Civil Code of Ukraine, codification of legislation onintellectual property law, subject and method of intellectual property law The article examines the issues related to the possibility ofcodification of legislation in the field of intellectual property rights. Currently, inUkraine there is a three-tier regulation of public relations in the field of intellectualproperty law. On the one hand, the Civil Code of Ukraine, the rules of which are characterizedby a corresponding nature, terminological inconsistency with special legislation;special legislation regulating legal relations arising from the creation and use ofcertain objects of intellectual property rights; as well as the provisions of ratified internationallegal acts in this area. Such legislation does not contribute to effectiveprotection or effective protection of intellectual property rights.The updating of the Civil Code of Ukraine will not improve the situation regardingproper legislative support in this area, and may lead to new conflicts. Based on the analysis of existing approaches in legal doctrine on the possible codificationof legislation in the field of intellectual property law, it is concluded that it ispossible if the latter is separated into an independent branch of law, characterized bythe subject and method of legal regulation. The existing approach to the definition ofthe subject of regulation in the doctrine of intellectual property law coincides with thecivilized approaches and does not reflect the specifics of legal relations that characterizethe field of intellectual property. The subject of intellectual property law is notlimited to private law relations, public law is also quite common. In this regard, it isproposed to understand the subject as a legal relationship arising in connection withthe creation, use and protection of intellectual property rights. It is proved that theright of intellectual property can be separated into an independent branch of law andto codify its legislation. This will be facilitated by the interest of the state and the correspondingpolitical will to do so.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document