Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Strategy Clearing House

Query: Case law for AI and IP

8 record(s) found.

Member state Policy type Details
AustraliaCase law for AI and IP
CanadaCase law for AI and IP
ChinaCase 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 UnionCase law for AI and IP
  • European Patent Office decision of 27 January 2020 on EP 18 275 163 and European Patent Office decision of 27 January 2020 on EP 18 275 174
    The decisions concern the refusal of the European patent applications EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174 in which an AI system called "DABUS" was designated as the inventor. The EPO considered provisions of the European Patent Convention (“EPC”) and the term “inventor”. The EPO held that the term refers to a natural person and noted that this appears to be an internationally applicable standard, and that various national courts have issued decisions to this effect. This ruling follows similar stances adopted by other IP offices worldwide.
  • Decision T 0161/18 (Äquivalenter Aortendruck/ARC SEIBERSDORF) of 12.5.2020
    In this decision, the European Patent Office did not grant a patent on determining cardiac output by the aid of an artificial neural network. The decision points to a lack of descriptive sufficiency because a subject matter expert could not reproduce the training of an artificial neural network.
  • Decisions J 8/20 and J 9/20 of the Legal Board of Appeal (December 21, 2021)
    On December 21, 2021 the Legal Board of Appeal announced its decision to dismiss the appeal in cases J 8/20 and J 9/20. The Legal Board of Appeal confirmed the decisions of the Receiving Section of the European Patent Office to refuse the applications EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174, in which an artificial intelligence system called DABUS was designated as inventor in the application forms.
GermanyCase 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.
  • German Federal Patent Court Decision (November 11, 2021)
    On November 11, 2021, the court ruled that AI-generated inventions are patentable but a natural person must be named as the inventor. To get around the current legal impediment, the court said the applicant can state that an AI machine was involved.
South AfricaCase law for AI and IP
United KingdomCase law for AI and IP
United States of AmericaCase law for AI and IP