Intellectual Property

Subscribe to Intellectual Property via RSS

In an opinion issued December 4, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit[1] reversed a lower court’s denial of Intel Corporation’s (“Intel’s”) motion for leave to amend its answer to assert a new license defense in a patent infringement suit brought by VLSI Technology LLC (“VLSI”).  The decision paves the way for Intel to make the case that it received a license to VLSI’s patents when a company that Intel had an existing license with became affiliated with VLSI due to its acquisition by an investment management firm.

This second part of our four-part series on using synthetic data to train AI models explores how the use of synthetic data training sets may mitigate copyright infringement risks under EU law.

This is the first part of series on using synthetic data to train AI models. See here for Parts 2, 3, and 4.

The recent rapid advancements of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) have revolutionized creation and learning patterns. Generative AI (“GenAI”) systems have unveiled unprecedented capabilities, pushing the boundaries of what we thought possible. Yet, beneath the surface of the transformative potential of AI lies a complex legal web of intellectual property (“IP”) risks, particularly concerning the use of “real-world” training data, which may lead to alleged infringement of third-party IP rights if AI training data is not appropriately sourced.

On October 19, 2023, the U.S. Copyright Office announced in the Federal Register that it will consider a proposed exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (“DMCA”) anti-circumvention provisions which prohibit the circumvention of any technological measures used to prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works.  The exemption would allow those researching bias in artificial intelligence (“AI”) to bypass any technological measures that limit the use of copyrighted generative AI models.

On October 30, 2023, the G7 Leaders published a Statement on the Hiroshima Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) Process (the “Statement”).[1] This follows the G7 Summit in May, where the leaders agreed on the need to address the risks arising from rapidly evolving AI technologies. The Statement was accompanied by the Hiroshima Process International Code of Conduct for Organizations Developing Advanced AI Systems (the “Code of Conduct”)[2] and the Hiroshima Process International Guiding Principles for Advanced AI Systems (the “Guiding Principles”).[3]

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently affirmed a decision by the U.S. Copyright Office (“USCO”) in which the USCO denied an application to register a work authored entirely by an artificial intelligence program.  The case, Thaler v. Perlmutter, challenging U.S. copyright law’s human authorship requirement, is the first of its kind in the United States, but will definitely not be the last, as questions regarding the originality and protectability of generative AI (“GenAI”) created works continue to arise.  The court in Thaler focused on the fact that the work at issue had no human authorship, setting a clear rule for one end of the spectrum.  As the court recognized, the more difficult questions that will need to be addressed include how much human input is required to qualify the user as the creator of a work such that it is eligible for copyright protection.

GitHub, acquired by Microsoft in 2018, is an online repository used by software developers for storing and sharing software projects.  In collaboration with OpenAI, GitHub released an artificial intelligence-based offering in 2021 called Copilot, which is powered by OpenAI’s generative AI model, Codex.  Together, these tools assist software developers by taking natural language prompts describing a desired functionality and suggesting blocks of code to achieve that functionality.  OpenAI states on its website that, Codex was trained on “billions of lines of source code from publicly available sources, including code in public GitHub repositories.” 

On 27 April 2023, the European Commission (the “Commission”) proposed a new regulation on the licensing of standard essential patents (the “Proposal”).[1]  The objective of the Proposal is to facilitate standard essential patent (“SEP”) licensing negotiations by providing clarity on several aspects: transparency as to who owns SEPs and which SEPs are essential; transparency on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and conditions; and dispute resolution for the determination of FRAND terms.[2]  

In a unanimous decision published on May 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated two of Amgen’s patents for its cholesterol drug, Repatha, making it more difficult for patentees to obtain broadly worded patents.[1]  The case – Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi – involves a dispute between the two pharmaceutical companies over the “enablement” requirement of 35 U.S.C. Section 112,[2] specifically how much a patent must disclose in order to “enable” a skilled person to make and use the claimed invention without undue trial and error.  The Supreme Court held that Amgen failed to provide enough detail to recreate the full scope of its claimed invention, and that if a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures or compositions of matter then the patent must include sufficient information that enables a person skilled in the art to make and use the entire class.

What You Need To Know

  1. From 1 June 2023, a new EU unitary patent system (UPS) will become fully effective. A unitary patent (UP) is a European patent granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) to which, at the patent owner’s request, unitary effect is given for the territory of the EU Member States that have ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement – currently, 17 EU Member States. UPs give patent owners uniform protection across participating EU Member States, removing the need for national validation procedures as well as individual national enforcement in each EU Member State.