admin-suneet

Introduction

A study conducted in 2019 by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) found that the number of patents connected to artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly increased in a variety of areas, including telecommunications, transportation, and life sciences. This highlights the increasing influence that AI is having on driving innovation and technical breakthroughs all across the world.

A landmark decision by South Africa

In a recent development, the South African Intellectual Property Office made headlines by granting a patent to an AI called DABUS (device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience). Designed by Stephan Thaler, CEO of imagination engines, DABUS received a patent for its fractal-based food container. On the other hand, the exact same application was turned down by patent offices in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States, which led to criticism of South Africa’s judgment.

Understanding South Africa’s decision

Despite the criticism from around the world, the decision made by the South African IP office is in line with the laws that are already in place in the country’s government as well as the aim of encouraging innovation. Notably, 2018 saw the beginning of patent reform in South Africa, which was highlighted by the implementation of the Intellectual Property Policy Phase I. After then, a number of additional key policy instruments were released, each of which placed an emphasis on the significance of science, technology, innovation, and the coming of the fourth industrial revolution.

Rejection by USA, UK and EU

The Hegelian Theory of Personality can be held responsible for the patent offices in the United States, the United Kingdom, and European Union turning down the application for an artificial intelligence patent. According to this school of thought, intellectual property is an expression of the personality of the person who created it. The regulations governing patents in these areas declare unequivocally that they are only applicable to human inventors. They place an emphasis on the requirement of “mental conception,” which is thought to be a capacity that is unique to the human mind. In addition to this, the rights of inventor ship can only be granted to human beings.

The Australian Dilemma & Reversal

In a landmark case in 2021, the Australian Federal Court ruled for the first time under the Australian Patents Act 1990 (the Act) that an artificial intelligence (AI) machine could be designated as an inventor on a patent application and agreed that DABUS (an artificial intelligence) could be the inventor.

On appeal to this decision, a five-judge majority of the Australian Full Federal Court unanimously reversed that ruling on appeal, stating that for the Act to apply, an inventor must be a natural person. This most recent decision brings Australia back in accord with the decisions of courts in United States, United Kingdom and European Union.

Prospects in India: An open door?

Form 1 of the Patents Act contains application 3B, which allows the applicant to be a natural or non-natural person, such as a small business, a startup, or another entity. The term ‘other’ is highly interpretable and can be used in a variety of contexts not mentioned precisely.

In addition, the Act does not define the term “inventor,” but it does define the term “patentee” in section 2(p), which states that a patentee is “the person for the time being entered on the register as the grantee or proprietor of the patent.” In addition, section 2(s) specifies that the definition of “person” includes the government; the word “includes” indicates that this definition is exhaustive. When read in conjunction with Section 6, which establishes the list of individual’s eligible to apply for a patent, these sections should result in the establishment of a set of rules and regulations enabling the exploration of this possibility in India.

Moreover, the Indian Copyright Office has recognized AI as a co-author of a painting, ‘Suryast,’ granting co-authorship to the AI named RAGHAV and its owner, Ankit Sahni. This decision showcases India’s willingness to explore innovative approaches while balancing intellectual property norms.

Call for amendments

In light of the growing importance of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), the Parliamentary Standing Committee in India has published a study that suggests modifying the current Patents Act and Copyright Act in the country. The goal of the reforms that are being proposed is to adapt the existing legal framework to account for AI as well as ideas and works generated by AI. Although there has not been a patent application for AI submitted in India as of yet, the results of such an application, should one be made, would be of significant interest.

Conclusion

Even while developing nations like South Africa and India are working hard to encourage innovation, it does not seem prudent to grant patents or co-authorship rights to AI entities just yet. The current iteration of the world’s rules governing intellectual property cannot accommodate the recognition of AI as the creator or inventor of intellectual property.

#AI #AIOWNERSHIP #AIINVENTOR #DABUS #SOUTHAFRICA #AIAUTHOR 

Introduction

Trademark law recently witnessed an intriguing issue involving sportswear giant Adidas and renowned designer Thom Browne. The case centered on the usage of stripes, with Adidas claiming that Browne’s Four-Stripe design infringed on its Three-Striped Mark. The Manhattan Federal Court found in favour of Browne in a landmark case, causing major debate in the media and the trademark community. This article digs into the case’s specifics, delving into the arguments advanced by both parties and analyzing the ramifications of the court’s ruling.

The Origin of the Conflict

The dispute between Adidas and Thom Browne can be traced back to 2007, when Browne made a jacket with three stripes, which prompt Adidas to file a for a trademark infringement suit. Browne later made changes and added one more stripe to his trademark to deal with the problem. But things got worse again when Adidas saw Browne’s four-striped design. Adidas tried to negotiate with Browne, but they were not successful. Later, in 2021 Adidas filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Browne. The company said that Browne’s Four-Stripe design could trick and confuse customers and was a threat to Adidas’ Three-Stripe Mark, which has been a symbol of the brand since 1952.

The legal Battle

Adidas tried to stop Browne’s Four-Stripe design from being registered as a federal trademark by using its good name and many federal trademarks. The company said that the design was very similar to its own Three-Stripe Mark, which could cause customers to be confused. Thom Browne, on the other hand, set up his business as a high-end fashion name for a specific type of customer. He talked about how much more expensive his goods were than Adidas’ and said that people wouldn’t mistake his Four-Stripe design for the famous Three-Stripe Mark. Browne also said that stripes are used by a lot of different brands, so it’s not fair for Adidas to say that they own such a popular idea.

The Court’s verdict

The Manhattan Federal Court found in favour of Thom Browne, finding that a mark as simple as stripes should not be denied registration in order to protect a monopoly. The court decided that because Adidas has a lot of goodwill and a good name, customers aren’t likely to get confused because they mostly associate the three stripes with Adidas. This choice is in line with the idea of fair competition and recognizes how important it is to make sure that new players have a place in the market. By letting trademarks have generic similarities, the court supports competition law and makes sure that copyright protection doesn’t make it harder to get into a market or come up with new ideas.

Expert Perspectives and Controversies

Even though the court ruled in favour of Thom Browne, some experts on intellectual property say that Adidas, with its huge reputation, needs stronger protection because it has so much to lose. They say that Browne may have used Adidas’ good name in a way that wasn’t fair. Based on how well-known brands like Adidas are, these experts say that companies should have stronger trademark rights. But it is very important for the courts to stick to the basic rules of trademark law, which favour fair competition and try to stop cartels. Giving exclusive control over simple things like stripes could kill creativity and make it harder for new players to get into the market.

Conclusion

The trademark fight between Adidas and Thom Browne shows how brands, fair competition, and the limits of trademark protection all work together in a complicated way. Even though Adidas lost the case, the court’s ruling shows  how important it is to keep a trademark landscape that are fair and keeps monopolies from happening. This precedent-setting ruling shows how important it is to stick to the rules of fair competition and give everyone in the market an equal chance.

The Issue

It is widely acknowledged that large corporations spend a lot of resources on research and development to produce new, patent-worthy products and technologies. These corporations hire individuals to work on this research and development. These corporations in this case are the Employers. The point of contention here is who will be the owner of these patents, the employer or the individual who create such inventions. The Patent Act, 1970 is mute on this subject and does not actually address who owns patents developed while a person is employed, but it does indicate that the inventor will always be the patent’s first owner. As a result, it becomes a bit murky since the employer made a capital investment in the invention of the patent while the employee has completed the task for which he was employed.

Unlike the Patent Law, the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, despite being the older enactment, clearly states in section 17(c) that the owner of any copyrightable work created during employment shall belong to the employer unless a contract is executed between the parties to the contrary.

Course of Employment Explained

The Indian Courts have consistently protected the rights of employees against their employers in matters related to patent ownership. In the case of Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. (2014), the High Court of Bombay ruled that it is not the duty of a managing director to participate in a company’s research and development activities. As a result, his invention would be outside the scope of his employment, and he was not hired for the position that produced the paten.

This means that an employee’s job responsibilities will be limited to the specific tasks they were hired to perform. For example, if an employee is hired in the process of developing a patent and comes up with a new invention in that course, it will only be recognised as a patent developed during the course of employment and not otherwise.

Comparative Analysis

Indian patent law is not as effective as it could be in safeguarding the employer’s rights. However, there are certain other countries that have implemented measures to address this issue.

Deemed Ownership

The concept of deemed ownership is discussed in three different patent acts: section 39 of the United Kingdom Act, section 132 of the Israeli Patent Act, and section 6 of the Chinese Patent Act. The concept of deemed ownership is founded on the principle of ‘Duty to invent’. This means that if an individual is employed with the specific responsibility of inventing something, they are not entitled to claim ownership of the patent for that invention. In other words, if an employee is hired to create something new, any resulting intellectual property belongs to the employer rather than the employee. The reason behind this action is to provide incentives to employers who dedicate their resources towards the creation of new patents. This, in turn, contributes to the overall progress and advancement of the nation.

Shop- right

The principle of Shop Right has been implemented and utilised in the United States of America. It is a non-transferable right that grants the employer the ability to use a patented invention without having to pay any royalties, even if the employee is the rightful owner of the patent. In the United States patent laws, there is no mention of the provision of employer-employee ownership of patents. However, the courts have established precedents to safeguard the interests of employers.

Takeaway for the Employer

The only option left to employers in India, where there is no law defining who owns patents created during the course of employment, is to add a clause relating to the exhaustion of patent rights to the employment contracts of the employees, stating that the employees will not assert any ownership rights over any patent that may be created during their employment. This will protect the ownership of any potential patents. Furthermore, the absence of precedents on the given lacuna in India demonstrates that the employers are being wise and have already taken steps to protect the workers they hire for research and development.

Conclusion

The lack of provisions in the Patent Act regarding employee-developed patent ownership in India discourages employers or large corporations from investing in research and development, which ultimately slows down the growth of the entire nation. As a result, a consistent provision defining the ownership of patents created in the course of employment is urgently needed.

#patent #patentlaw #patentownership #patentbyemployee #dutytoinvent #shopright

Get in touch with the Brainiac Team