|Australia||Case law for AI and IP|
|Canada||Case law for AI and IP|
|China||Case law for AI and IP|
- Decision ZL200410053749.9 regarding Chatbot System right 2015
A case between Shanghai Zhizhen Intelligent Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Apple Inc. regarding whether the "Siri Voice Assistant" infringed the patent for the invention named "Chatbot System". The decision includes a discussion whether the "functional module" description, which is common in the field of artificial intelligence, fulfills the enabling disclosure requirement.
- Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yingmou Technology Co., Ltd. 2019
A court in the Chinese city of Shenzhen held that an article that was created by an artificial intelligence program benefitted from copyright protection.
- Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2017) Jing 73 Min Zhong No. 797 Civil Judgment. April 2, 2020
In this case, a sports camera being attached to an air balloon, automatically took videos of the earth surface. When discussing the copyright issues, the Court determined that although the camera was out of human control during the automatic overhead recording process, there still was a human intervention reflected in preselection of a video recording mode, video display format, sensitivity and other parameters of the camera. These parameters were considered to be set in advance, therefore, screenshots selected from the videos taken automatically by the camera constitute photographic works, and the unauthorized use of these pictures by others constitutes an infringement of the copyright of the Plaintiff's photographic work.
|European Union||Case law for AI and IP|
|Germany||Case law for AI and IP|
- Decisions relating to patent applications 10 2019 129 136.4 and 10 2019 129 136.4
In October 2019, the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) received two patent applications named an artificial intelligence machine called DABUS as an inventor (File numbers: 10 2019 128 120.2 and 10 2019 129 136.4). In March 2020, the DPMA rejected both applications, as the declaration of inventorship submitted by the applicant did not meet the requirements set out in the German Patent Act and the German Patent Ordinance. In particular, the decisions states that the inventor pursuant to Sections 6, 37 and 63 of the German Patent Act, as well as Section 7 of the German Patent Ordinance can only be a natural person, i.e. a human being. With regards to both applications, an appeal by the applicant has been pending at the Federal Patent Court since May 2020.
|United Kingdom||Case law for AI and IP|
|United States of America||Case law for AI and IP|