Category: Intellectual Property

Parody of Iconic Sneaker Isn’t Entitled to Heightened First Amendment Protection

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining use of a trademark and trade dress associated with an iconic sneaker design over a First Amendment artistic expression defense. Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Product Studio, Inc., Case No. 22-1006 (2d Cir. Dec. 5, 2023) (per curiam). This case is the first time a federal appeals court has applied the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent decision in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products, which clarified when heightened First Amendment protections apply to expressive uses of another’s trademark and trade dress.

MSCHF Product Studio is a Brooklyn-based art collective known for provocative works that critique consumer culture. It sells its works in limited releases during prescribed sales periods called “drops.” It promoted and sold a shoe called the “Wavy Baby,” which is a distorted, corrugated version of the iconic black-and-white Vans Old Skool sneaker. MSCHF claimed that the product was a commentary on consumerism in sneakerhead culture and that the Wavy Baby shoes were not meant to be worn but were instead “collectible work[s] of art.”

MSCHF promoted the shoes using the musician Tyga. Vans sent MSCHF a cease-and-desist letter and a week later filed a six-count complaint in federal court, including a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The following day, Vans filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking to have the court enjoin the sale of the Wavy Baby shoes. Nevertheless, MSCHF proceeded with its pre-planned drop of the Wavy Baby sneakers and sold 4,306 pairs of the Wavy Baby in one hour.

About a week later, after oral argument on the temporary restraining order (TRO) motion, the district court granted Vans’s motion. The district court concluded that Vans would likely prevail in showing a likelihood of consumer confusion and rejected MSCHF’s contention that the Wavy Baby was entitled to special First Amendment protections because it was an artistic parody. MSCHF appealed.

The Second Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s Jack Daniel’s decision. In that case, Jack Daniel’s sued the maker of a squeaky dog toy that resembled the iconic whiskey bottle and used puns involving dog excrement in place of the actual language of the Jack Daniel’s label. In a unanimous decision, the Court clarified that special First Amendment protections (as used in the Rogers test for expressive works that incorporate another’s trademark) do not apply when a trademark is used as a source indicator—that is, “as a mark.”

The Second Circuit concluded that the Jack Daniel’s case “forecloses MSCHF’s argument that Wavy Baby’s parodic message merits higher First Amendment scrutiny” because, even though the product is a parody, the Rogers test does not apply if the mark is also used as a source identifier. The Second Circuit drew a direct parallel between Wavy Baby and the punning dog toy in the Jack Daniel’s case, noting that in both cases the infringing product evoked the protected trademark and trade dress of the target to benefit from the “good will” developed by the source brand. Hence, the Court held that the district court did not err in applying the traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis rather than the speech-protective Rogers test.

Practice Note: An alleged infringer of a trademark may claim that its product is artistic expression to trigger the heightened First Amendment protections offered by filters such as the Rogers test. However, after Jack Daniel’s, courts are more likely to regard such defenses with skepticism unless the allegedly infringing work falls into a more canonical category of artistic expression such as a film, television show, song or video game.

This article was authored by Karen Gover.

© 2023 McDermott Will & Emery
For more news on First Amendment Trademark Protections, visit the NLR Intellectual Property section.

China’s Supreme People’s Court Releases Typical Cases on Film Intellectual Property Protection

On November 3, 2023, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the Typical Cases of Film Intellectual Property Protection by the People’s Courts (人民法院电影知识产权保护典型案例). The SPC stated, “In order to strengthen the publicity of the rule of law in the film field, further stimulate the innovation and creativity of the film industry, and promote the prosperity of socialist culture, the Supreme People’s Court issued typical cases on the protection of film intellectual property rights. Typical cases include both criminal cases and civil cases, involving pirated recordings and dissemination of theatrical movies, protection of the integrity rights of works, adaptation rights, information network dissemination rights, reasonable use of copyrights, protection of trade secrets, etc., which are important for promoting the rule of law. It is of positive significance to speed up the construction of a powerful film country.”

8 Typical Cases as explained by the SPC follow:

1. Copyright infringement cases involving Ma XX, Ma YY and others [Criminal Judgment of Yangzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province （2020）苏10刑初11号]

[Basic case facts] From June 2016 to February 2019, the defendants Ma XX, Ma YY, Wen Jie, and Lu collaborated with others for the purpose of profit, colluded with theater staff to illegally obtain movie masters and keys, and then copied hundreds of movies such as “The Wandering Earth” and “Crazy Alien” with high-definition equipment, and sold the pirated and copied movies to “movie bar” operators to gain illegal profits.

[Judgment Result] The Intermediate People’s Court of Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province held that the defendants Ma XX, Ma YY, Wen Jie, and Lu copied and distributed other people’s film works without the permission of the copyright owner for the purpose of profit, and jointly implemented the production The act of selling pirated films, with huge illegal gains and other particularly serious circumstances, constitutes a crime of copyright infringement. The four defendants were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of four to six years, and fined from RMB 600,000 to RMB 5.5 million, and their illegal gains were recovered. After the verdict was announced, the parties did not appeal or protest, and the first-instance judgment has become legally effective.

[Typical Significance] This case is a typical case in which the act of stealing and distributing theater movies constitutes a crime of copyright infringement. The people’s courts perform their intellectual property trial duties in accordance with the law and severely crack down on illegal and criminal acts of infringement and piracy in the film field, which is of great significance to strengthening the copyright protection of theatrical films and promoting the healthy development of the film and television industry.

2. Liang XX’s copyright infringement case [Criminal Judgement of the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court (2021）沪03刑初101号]

[Basic Case Facts] Since 2018, the defendant Liang XX has instructed Wang YY and others to develop and operate the “Renren Film and Television Subtitle Group” website and Android, IOS, Windows, MacOSX, TV and other clients, and instructed Xie ZZ and others to download unauthorized film and television works from overseas websites, translate, produce and upload them to relevant servers, and provide users with online viewing and downloading through the “Renren Film and Television Subtitle Group” website and related clients operated by them. There are 32,824 unauthorized film and television works on the “Renren Film and Television Subtitle Group” website and related clients, with a total of about 6.83 million members and an illegal business amount of more than 12 million RMB.

[Judgment Result] The Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court held after trial that the defendant Liang XX copied and distributed other people’s works without the permission of the copyright owner for the purpose of profit, and there were other particularly serious circumstances, which constituted the crime of copyright infringement. Liang was sentenced to three years and six months in prison and fined RMB 1.5 million, and his illegal gains were recovered. After the verdict was announced, the parties did not appeal or protest, and the first-instance judgment has become legally effective.

[Typical Significance] There are many film and television works in this case and the rights holders are dispersed. The judgment clarified the legal application issues such as the crime of copyright infringement and the determination of the number of infringing film and television works. The criminal liability of the organizers and main participants shall be investigated in accordance with the law, and severe crackdowns shall be carried out for serious infringement of film copyright.

3. Copyright infringement dispute case between Shanghai Art Film Studio Co., Ltd. and Chongqing Yun Media Information Technology Co., Ltd. [Chongqing Fifth Intermediate People’s Court （2019）渝05民初3828号Civil Judgment]

[Basic facts of the case] Shanghai Art Film Studio Co., Ltd. owns the copyrights to the film works of the cartoons “Calabash Brothers” and “Calabash Little King Kong,” as well as the copyright to the character modeling art works of “Calabash Brothers” and “Calabash Little King Kong.” Chongqing Yun Media Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yun Media Technology Company) and others based on the story clips of the characters such as Seven Calabash Babies and Calabash King Kong in the cartoon, replaced the Mandarin carried by the audio data of the characters in the original work with Sichuan and Chongqing dialects, changed the dialogue content of the characters in the original work, produced multiple short videos of “Calabash Dialect Version,” and uploaded them to websites and public accounts for dissemination. Shanghai Animation Film Studio Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit in court on the grounds that the above-mentioned actions carried out by Yun Media Technology Company and others constituted copyright infringement.

[Judgment Result] The Fifth Intermediate People’s Court of Chongqing held after trial that Yun Media Technology Company and others jointly produced the short video involved in the case, deliberately exaggerated the use of vulgar, negative, dark and uncivilized terms in dialects, changed the dialogue content of the characters in the original work, and vilified the original work. The character image in the work was uploaded to the Internet platform for wide dissemination, which conflicts with the core socialist values, damages the legitimate rights and interests of the copyright owner, and constitutes copyright infringement. It was ruled that Yun Media Technology Company and others should immediately stop the infringement, jointly publish a statement to eliminate the impact, and jointly compensate for economic losses. After the first-instance judgment, none of the parties appealed.

[Typical Significance] The judgment of this case emphasizes that the derivative use of other people’s film works  must not deface the characters in the film works, and must not include cultural dross. It must vigorously promote the core socialist values, which plays a positive guiding role in establishing healthy and civilized rule of law in the film industry.

4. Copyright ownership and infringement dispute case between Yu Mouzhu and Zhejiang Dongyang Meila Media Co., Ltd. [Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court of Sichuan Province （2018）川01民初1122号 Civil Judgment]

[Basic facts of the case] Yu Mouzhu published his novel “Wild Lily in Bloom” (盛开的野百合) on the website under the pseudonym Yu Mou, and adapted the novel into a script of the same name and sent it to Emei Film Group Co., Ltd. Since then, Zhejiang Dongyang Meila Media Co., Ltd. commissioned others to write the “Youth” movie script, and the film of the same name jointly produced with Huayi Brothers Film Co., Ltd. and others was released. Yu Mouzhu believes that the plot setting, character relationships, lines, and song and dance combinations of the “Youth” movie are highly overlapped with its novel and script, constituting substantial similarities, exceeding the boundaries of reasonable reference, and constituting an infringement of its rights to adapt and film and believes Zhejiang Dongyang Meila Media Co., Ltd., as the producer of the film “Youth” and other parties, jointly committed infringement.

[Judgment Result] The Intermediate People’s Court of Chengdu City, Sichuan Province held that there are obvious differences in the specific subject matter, story line, and theme between the “Youth” movie and Yu Mouzhu’s works. As far as the plot of the work is concerned, the multiple similar plots claimed by Yu Mouzhu are objective facts and limited expressions were not original and should not be protected. The plot of the disputed book and the character relationships advocated by Yu are obviously different from the movie “Youth.” Readers and audiences will not believe them to be similar and they do not have substantial similarities. Therefore, the all claims are dismissed. Yu Mouzhu was dissatisfied and appealed. The second-instance judgment of the Sichuan Provincial Higher People’s Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Typical Significance] The judgment in this case clarified that objective facts and limited expressions are not original and are not protected by copyright law, and should be filtered when comparing infringements. The judgment also clarifies the correct comparison content and comparison method when determining whether a film work is infringing, protects the legitimate rights and interests of film copyright owners in accordance with the law, maintains a fair market competition order, and has positive significance for the prosperity of film creation.

5. Dispute case between Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Qiaojiaren Culture Media Co., Ltd. for infringement of the right to disseminate work information online [Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2021）京73民终2496号 Civil Judgment]

[Basic facts of the case] Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. was authorized to obtain the exclusive information network dissemination rights and rights protection rights for the movie “I am not Madame Bovary.”  The APP operated by Shanghai Qiaojiaren Culture Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Qiaojiaren Company) provides online playback of the complete content of the film involved and added corresponding dubbing, sign language translation, and source subtitles on the basis of the pictures and sound effects of the video involved in this case, but no identification/prevention mechanism to limit viewership to those with dyslexia was used. Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. believes that the APP provides online playback services for the accessible version of the movie “I Am Not Madame Bovary” to unspecified members of the public, infringing on its right to information network dissemination, and filed a lawsuit in court, requesting an order against Qiaojiaren Company to stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

[Judgment Result] The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the “accessible means that can be perceived by people with dyslexia” stipulated in the Copyright Law should include special restrictions on this “accessible means”, that is, it should be limited to meeting the requirements of and exclusive use of people with dyslexia.  The alleged infringement of Qiaojiaren Company is open to the unspecified public and does not meet the above conditions. It does not belong to statutory fair use and constitutes infringement. Considering that the original intention of Qiaojiaren Company was to make films accessible to people with disabilities and that the video involved had few clicks, the Court awarded economic losses of 10,000 RMB.

[Typical Significance] This case is the country’s first dispute involving an accessible version of a movie that infringes on the right to disseminate work information online. The judgment clarified that “providing published works to people with dyslexia in an accessible manner that they can perceive” is limited to the exclusive use of people with dyslexia. As a “fair use,” an effective verification mechanism for “people with dyslexia” should be adopted and exclude those who do not meet the criteria. The judgment in this case is conducive to the accurate implementation of the relevant international treaties that our country has joined (the “Marrakesh Treaty”), to the comprehensive protection of the rights of copyright owners, and to the regulation of the production and distribution of accessible versions of movies.

6. Zhejiang Shenghe Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Legend IP Co., Ltd. Confirmation of Non-infringement of Copyright Dispute Case [Hangzhou Internet Court（2021）浙0192民初10369号 Civil Judgment]

[Basic Case Facts] The Korean game “Legend of Mir 2” was launched in China in 2001. The rights holder, Legend IP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Legend IP”), after learning that the movie “Blue Moon” was about to be broadcast exclusively on the platform, believed that the movie infringed on the game’s copyright and sent a letter to the platform requesting to stop distributing the movie. The film producer sent a letter of reminder to Legend IP to enforce their IP, but Legend IP neither withdrew the warning nor sued. After the movie was released, Zhejiang Shenghe Network Technology Co., Ltd., as the copyright owner of the movie, sued for a declaratory judgement that the movie did not infringe the above-mentioned game copyright.

[Judgment Result] The Hangzhou Internet Court held that the overall picture of the game involved in the case is completely different from that of the movie in terms of picture composition, picture smoothness, lens experience, and audio-visual effects, and that the specific creative elements in the selection and arrangement of the audio-visual pictures are very different. There is a substantial difference, and the judgment confirms that there is no infringement. Legend IP was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. The second-instance judgment of the Intermediate People’s Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Typical Significance] The judgment of this case clarifies the thoughts of comparing whether the overall picture of the game and the film works are infringing, and points out that a work created later does not constitute infringement if it only refers to the theme or conception of the prior work, but specifically expresses that it has been separated from or differs from the prior work. The judgment of this case is conducive to guiding the development and prosperity of multi-style cultural innovation and promoting the high quality integrated development of the cultural industry.

7. Dispute over trade secret infringement between Xinli Media Group Co., Ltd. and Beijing Paihua Culture Media Co., Ltd. [Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court(2017）京0105民初68514号 Civil Judgment]

[Basic facts of the case] Xinli Media Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xinli Company) is the copyright holder of the movie “The Legend of Wukong.” It entrusted Beijing Paihua Culture Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Paihua Company) with the audio post-production of the film. Both parties signed a contract and agreed on a confidentiality clause. During the performance of the contract, Paihua Company violated the confidentiality agreement by outsourcing some of the work to outsiders for actual completion, and transmitted the film materials to the outsiders under the title “WKZ” (the first letters of the transliteration of the film title) through Baidu Cloud. While the film material was being stored on Baidu Cloud, it was hacked by criminals, causing the film involved to be leaked through the Internet before it was released. Xinli Company sued, requesting Paihua Company to stop the unfair competition behavior of disclosing the trade secrets of the film involved, make a public statement to eliminate the impact, and compensate for economic losses.

[Judgment Result] The Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court held after trial that Paihua Company violated the confidentiality agreement by disclosing the film material involved to a party outside the case, and uploaded the material to Baidu Cloud, which ultimately caused the material to be leaked on the Internet. Both of these acts constituted Infringement of trade secrets. It was ruled that Paihua Company should compensate Xinli Company for economic losses of 3 million RMB and rights protection expenses of more than 300,000 RMB, and make a public statement to eliminate the impact. After the first-instance judgment, none of the parties appealed.

[Typical Significance] This case is a typical case of protecting materials as trade secrets during the film production process. Film materials are trade secrets, and there are many subjects involved in the film production process. All parties involved in film production have strict confidentiality obligations in all aspects of film production. Any violation of confidentiality obligations shall bear corresponding legal liability. The judgment in this case is conducive to promoting the standardization and legalization of the film production process, is conducive to protecting the rights of relevant rights holders involved in film production, and is conducive to promoting the prosperity and development of the film industry.

8. Unfair competition dispute case between Xinghui Overseas Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Zhengkai Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. [Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court（2020）粤73民终2289号 Civil Judgment]

[Basic Case Facts] The Hong Kong movie “The King of Comedy” has a high reputation and the relevant public attention is high. Guangzhou Zhengkai Culture Communication Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhengkai Company) and Li XX promoted the accused infringing TV series “The King of Comedy 2018” on Weibo and WeChat official accounts in 2018 as the “series #King of Comedy” , and claimed in media promotions that it was adapted from “The King of Comedy” and so on. Hong Kong film copyright owner Xinghui Overseas Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit in court, claiming that Zhengkai Company and Li XX were unfair competing.

[Judgment Result] After a hearing, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that by taking into account the box office receipts of the movie involved during the theatrical release in Hong Kong, the publicity efforts conducted before and during theatrical release, the number of films played on authorized video websites, the degree of continuous media coverage of the movie, and the involvement of the relevant public in the evaluation of the movie, among other factors, it could be fully proved that the titles of the movie involved had a certain degree of influence. The acts of Zhengkai Company and Li XX constituted the act of imitating and confusing the film name and false publicity with a certain degree of influence, and Zhengkai Company and Li XX shall bear the legal liabilities for unfair competition according to law.

[Typical Significance] In this case, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law is applied to protect the names of movies screened in Hong Kong in accordance with the law, and in light of the dissemination characteristics of film works, the essential requirements and considerations for determining the names of audiovisual works “having a certain impact” as prescribed in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law are clarified, which are of positive significance in strengthening the protection of film works, and are conducive to creating a sound market environment for the development and prosperity of the film industry.

The original announcement is available here (Chinese only).

© 2023 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on China Intellectual Property Laws, visit the NLR Intellectual Property section.

Does the “Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023” Revive Diagnostic Claims?

On June 22, Senator Chris Coons, along with Thom Tillis introduced the “Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023” (hereinafter “the Act”) to amend 35 USC s. 101 to clarify the scope of patent-eligible subject matter. Section 101(b) would be amended to delete “includes a new use of a known process” and insert “includes a use, application, or method of manufacture of a known or naturally occurring process.” A section (k) would be added to define the term “useful” as meaning that the invention or discovery has a “specific and practical utility” from the perspective of a POSA. So far, so good. The use of a naturally occurring process can be read to cover the use of a naturally occurring correlation, an “If A then B” claim. The recognition of the discovery of the utility of a naturally occurring correlation, which leads to a diagnostic conclusion would seem to be included in this broad language.

But now things get a bit sketchy. The Act would abolish all the current judicial, e.g. Chakrabarty, exclusions but would add a set of statutory exclusions that overlap the judicial exclusions in some places. The exclusions include “an unmodified human gene”—good-bye Myriad—and an unmodified natural material as that material exists in nature, e.g., water. This exclusion would not jeopardize diagnostic claims since a per se is not being claimed.

More troublesome, Section C of the exclusions would include a process that “occurs in nature wholly independent of, and prior to, any human activity.” Diagnostic claims are process claims that are based on the recognition of the utility of a correlation that takes place in the body. The utility of the diagnostic claim lies solely in the recognition of the utility of the correlation. If a man has an elevated level of PSA he is at risk of developing, or may already have, prostate cancer. But isn’t the relationship between PSA levels and cancer/no cancer a process that occurs in nature wholly independent of, and prior to, any human activity, such as sampling and measuring the level of PSA in the blood? Please read the Act and tell me why I am wrong.

© 2023 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

For more Intellectual Property Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Intellectual Property for the Metaverse

How do you use the patent system to protect inventions related to the metaverse?

What is the Metaverse?

Merriam-Webster defines the metaverse as “a persistent virtual environment that allows access to and interoperability of multiple individual virtual realities.” The term “metaverse” originates from dystopian science fiction novels in which it referred to an immersive, computer-generated virtual world. Today’s “metaverse” is now firmly integrated into the technology sector and can be thought of as a common virtual world shared by all users across a plurality of platforms. Examples of metaverse-related technology includes the software that generates these virtual environments, as well as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) headsets and other devices that enable human interaction with the environment and representations of other humans within it.

The adoption of metaverse-related technology is expanding. In 2021 the company then known as Facebook rebranded to “Meta” in an effort to emphasize the company’s commitment to developing a metaverse. In Fall of 2022, Apple announced the development of its own VR/AR headset. 2022 also saw the launch of the first Metaverse Fashion Week.

These events are indicative of the growing emphasis on the metaverse and the expectation amongst technology companies that the metaverse will be the eventual successor to the internet, smartphones, and/or social media. Applications of the metaverse are not limited to socialization and gaming—as the metaverse expands there is increased acknowledgment of the benefits it may provide in other settings, including in education, finance, and medicine.

As patent attorneys and innovators, we ask: How do you use the existing framework of the patent system to best protect inventions related to the metaverse?

Using Patents to Protect Inventive Concepts in the Metaverse

In this blog post, we explore considerations for protecting inventions in and related to the metaverse. Because many of these technologies are new and the industry surrounding the metaverse is in its infancy, inventions made today may prove to be quite valuable in the coming years. Protecting these inventions today is likely to be well worth the investment in the future. Inventive concepts in the metaverse can be protected using both utility patents which focus on the functional benefits of an invention and design patents which focus on the ornamental aspects of an invention.

Utility Applications for Metaverse

Utility patents may be used to protect the functional aspects of hardware or software-based innovative technologies in the metaverse.

Innovators in the metaverse environment might pursue patent protection on technologies associated with headsets, displays, cameras, user control interfaces, networked storage and servers, processors, power components, interoperability, communication latency, and the like. These hardware-based inventions for the metaverse may be a natural expansion of those previously developed for augmented and virtual reality, video-game technology, or the internet. Accordingly, patent applicants may look to those fields for best practices in protecting their hardware-based inventions. As with any patent application, identifying a point of novelty early on in the process is essential to deciding whether and how to pursue patent protection.

Software-based inventions may include technologies associated with performing tasks in the metaverse, such as representation of virtual environments and avatars, speech/voice processing, and blockchain transactions (e.g., for purchasing virtual goods). These software-based inventions may face additional challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), where the patent eligibility bar under 35 U.S.C. §101 prohibits the patenting of “abstract ideas” which may include methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and mathematical concepts. It is typical for software-related patent applications to receive a patent eligibility rejection during the examination process.

One challenge in patenting software-based applications for the metaverse includes the fact that software that merely implements a process that is equivalent to a known process outside of the metaverse environment is unlikely to be allowed by the USPTO. However, a software-based invention that accounts for the changes introduced by being in a metaverse environment and addresses what specific problems were unique to the metaverse may be found patentable by the USPTO. Thus, best practices for drafting patent applications related to the metaverse may be to include details surrounding the considerations taken to account for the change in operating in the metaverse environment as opposed to a non-metaverse environment in any patent applications.

Additionally, while patent applicants may draft patent applications with the USPTO in mind, applicants should also consider the intricacies of claiming patent protection for software related technologies on a global basis. For example, patent applicants should consider that patents for software processes are more difficult to acquire in Europe unless clear indications of how a software-based invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem are included in the application.

Design Applications for Metaverse

Innovators in the metaverse may also use design patents to protect ornamental aspects of their invention. For example, fashion companies may seek protection of their branded objects within the metaverse. Technology companies may try to protect the ornamental features of their headsets or user interfaces.

The protection of objects within the metaverse presents an interesting avenue for patent protection. Objects displayed within the metaverse may be protected similarly to how innovations in video-game technology, web applications and graphical user interfaces are currently protected using design patents. For example, representations of physical items within a virtual environment can be considered computer-generated icons that can be protected so long as they are shown in an embodiment tying them to an article of manufacture such as a computer screen, monitor, other display panel, or any portion thereof in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 171. Similarly, movement of items within a multiverse environment can be protected similar to how changeable computer generated icons are protected today.

Again, while patent applicants may focus on the requirements of the USPTO, it is important to note that the metaverse is inherently global in its nature and that industrial design applications across the globe may have different requirements. For example, Europe does not require a display screen for industrial designs. Accordingly, comprehensive strategies for design protection of metaverse related technologies may consider the nuances of seeking industrial design protection in various jurisdictions.

Other Methods for Protecting Inventive Concepts in the Metaverse

As with any product or company, a comprehensive strategy for intellectual property protection includes not only patents but also trademarks and copyrights. As intellectual property attorneys consider the best ways to protect a client’s product, they may often turn to trademarks and copyrights in connection with design and utility patent applications to provide more holistic protection of intellectual property assets. For example, fashion-based companies may utilize a combination of trademark protection and design patent protection for their brands and the innovative designs for which they are known in the metaverse. Software-based companies may turn to a combination of copyright and utility patents to protect innovative functionality for the metaverse.

Concluding Thoughts

The growth in use of utility and design patent applications to protect concepts related to the metaverse is immense. One study conducted by IALE Tecnología found that “over the past five years, metaverse-related patent applications have doubled to more than 2,000.” This rapid expansion in patents for innovative concepts surrounding the metaverse is only expected to advance in the coming years.

Cohesive and comprehensive strategies involving utility patents, design patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets are likely to provide the best protection to innovators operating in the metaverse.

©1994-2023 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

For more Intellectual Property Legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Blunt Rejection of Attorney Fees in Stipulated Dismissal

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of attorney fees, finding that neither inequitable conduct nor a conflict of interest rendered the case exceptional given the limited factual record following a stipulated dismissal in a patent case. United Cannabis Corp. v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc., Case No. 22-1363 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2023) (Lourie, Cunningham, Stark, JJ.).

United Cannabis Corporation (UCANN) sued Pure Hemp for patent infringement. After the litigation was stayed pending bankruptcy proceedings, the parties stipulated to the dismissal. Pure Hemp then sought attorney fees based on alleged inequitable conduct by UCANN during prosecution of the asserted patent due to nondisclosure of a prior art reference used in the patent’s specification and based on a purported conflict of interest by UCANN’s litigation counsel. The district court denied Pure Hemp’s request, finding that the case was not exceptional. Pure Hemp appealed.

Pure Hemp argued that the district court erred by (1) failing to find Pure Hemp to be the prevailing party in the litigation, (2) not concluding that the undisputed facts established inequitable conduct and (3) not recognizing that UCANN’s attorneys had a conflict of interest.

The Federal Circuit found that although the district court erred in not finding Pure Hemp to be the prevailing party, this was a harmless error. The Court explained that by fending off UCANN’s lawsuit with a stipulation dismissing UCANN’s claims with prejudice, Pure Hemp is a prevailing party under § 285. However, the Court concluded that this error was harmless because the district court ultimately concluded that this case was unexceptional.

The Federal Circuit found Pure Hemp’s arguments on inequitable conduct without merit. The Court explained that it had no findings to review because Pure Hemp voluntarily dismissed its inequitable conduct counterclaim and did not seek any post-dismissal inequitable conduct proceedings. Although Pure Hemp argued that it could prevail based on the undisputed facts in the record, the Court disagreed. It explained that even the limited record demonstrated at least a genuine dispute as to both the materiality and intent prongs of inequitable conduct and, therefore, the district court properly determined that Pure Hemp did not demonstrate that this case was exceptional.

The Federal Circuit also rejected Pure Hemp’s argument that copying and pasting portions from the prior art in the patent’s specification (but not disclosing the same prior art references) was inequitable conduct. The Court explained that unlike the nonbinding cases Pure Hemp relied on, the district court here did not find that the copied prior art was material, and the record gave no reason to disbelieve the explanation provided by UCANN’s prosecution counsel. The Court was also unpersuaded by Pure Hemp’s arguments to support inequitable conduct, explaining that the Court was not free to make its own findings on intent to deceive and materiality and, further, the district court was not required to provide its reasoning for its decision in attorney fee cases.

As to Pure Hemp’s argument that the case was exceptional because UCANN’s attorneys suffered from a conflict of interest, the Federal Circuit found that this argument was waived and, in any event, lacked merit because Pure Hemp presented no evidence to support the alleged conflict.

Finally, having sua sponte raised the issue of whether this was a frivolous appeal. The Federal Circuit determined that although it was “not pleased with how Pure Hemp has argued this appeal,” the appeal was nonetheless not frivolous because [Pure Hemp] properly argued that it was the prevailing party.

© 2023 McDermott Will & Emery
For more Intellectual Property Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

To AI or Not to AI: U.S. Copyright Office Clarifies Options

The U.S. Copyright Office has weighed in with formal guidance on the copyrightability of works whose generation included the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. The good news for technology-oriented human creative types: using AI doesn’t automatically disqualify your work from copyright protection. The bad news for independent-minded AI’s: you still don’t qualify for copyright protection in the United States.

On March 16, 2023, the Copyright Office issued a statement of policy (“Policy”) to clarify its practices for examining and registering works that contain material generated by the use of AI and how copyright law’s human authorship requirements will be applied when AI was used. This Policy is not itself legally binding or a guarantee of a particular outcome, but many copyright applicants may breathe a sigh of relief that the Copyright Office has formally embraced AI-assisted human creativity.

The Policy is just the latest step in an ongoing debate over the copyrightability of machine-assisted products of human creativity. Nearly 150 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled at photographs are copyrightable. See Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884). The case involved a photographer’s claim against a lithographer for 85,000 unauthorized copies of a photograph of Oscar Wilde. The photo, Sarony’s “Oscar Wilde No. 18,” is shown below:

Sarony’s “Oscar Wilde No. 18"

The argument against copyright protection was that a photograph is “a reproduction, on paper, of the exact features of some natural object or of some person” and is therefore not a product of human creativity. Id. at 56. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that there was sufficient human creativity involved in making the photo, including posing the subject, evoking the desired expression, arranging the clothing and setting, and managing the lighting.

In the mid-1960’s, the Copyright Office rejected a musical composition, Push Button Bertha, that was created by a computer, reasoning that it lacked the “traditional elements of authorship” as they were not created by a human.

In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Naruto, a crested macaque (represented by a group of friendly humans), lacked standing under the Copyright Act to hold a copyright in the “monkey selfie” case. See Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018). The “monkey selfie” is below:

Monkey Selfie

In February 2022, the Copyright Office rejected a registration (filed by interested humans) for a visual image titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” generated by DABUS, the AI whose claimed fractal-based inventions are the subject of patent applications around the world. DABUS’ image is below:

“A Recent Entrance to Paradise”

Litigation over this rejected application remains pending.

And last month, the Copyright Office ruled that a graphic novel consisting of human-authored text and images generated using the AI tool Midjourney could, as a whole, be copyrighted, but that the images, standing alone, could not. See U.S. Copyright Office, Cancellation Decision re: Zarya of the Dawn (VAu001480196) at 2 (Feb. 21, 2023).

The Copyright Office’s issuing the Policy was necessitated by the rapid and remarkable improvements in generative AI tools over even the past several months. In December 2022, generative AI tool Dall-E generated the following images in response to nothing more than the prompt, “portrait of a musician with a hat in the style of Rembrandt”:

Four portraits generated by AI tool Dall-E from the prompt, "portrait of a musician with a hat in the style of Rembrandt."

If these were human-generated paintings, or even photographs, there is no doubt that they would be copyrightable. But given that all four images were generated in mere seconds, with a single, general prompt from a human user, do they meet the Copyright Office’s criteria for copyrightability? The answer, now, is a clear “no” under the Policy.

However, the Policy opens the door to registering AI-assisted human creativity. The toggle points will be:

“…whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” 

In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” 

The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. This will necessarily be a case-by-case inquiry.” 

See Policy (citations omitted).

Machine-produced authorship alone will continue not to be registerable in the United States, but human selection and arrangement of AI-produced content could lead to a different result according to the Policy. The Policy provides select examples to help guide registrants, who are encouraged to study them carefully. The Policy, combined with near future determinations by the Copyright Office, will be critical to watch in terms of increasing likelihood a registration application will be granted as the Copyright Office continues to assess the impacts of new technology on the creative process. AI tools should not all be viewed as the “same” or fungible. The type of AI and how it is used will be specifically considered by the Copyright Office.

In the short term, the Policy provides some practical guidance to applicants on how to describe the role of AI in a new copyright application, as well as how to amend a prior application in that regard if needed. While some may view the Policy as “new” ground for the Copyright Office, it is consistent with the Copyright Office’s long-standing efforts to protect the fruits of human creativity even if the backdrop (AI technologies) may be “new.”

As a closing note, it bears observing that copyright law in the United Kingdom does permit limited copyright protection for computer-generated works – and has done so since 1988. Even under the U.K. law, substantial questions remain; the author of a computer-generated work is considered to be “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.” See Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) §§ 9(3), 12(7) and 178. In the case of images generated by a consumer’s interaction with a generative AI tool, would that be the consumer or the generative AI provider?

Article By Nadia G. Aram and Dr. Christian E. Mammen of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2023 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.

H2 Production: A Shift Towards Electrolysis

Hydrogen production technology, according to the joint EPO-IEA report summarizing patent trends in the hydrogen economy (summarized here), accounts for the largest percentage of patenting activity since 2011 among the three primary stages of the hydrogen value chain (i.e., (i) production, (ii) storage, distribution, and transformation, and (iii) end-use industrial applications). Trends show a shift in hydrogen production from carbon-intensive methods to technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The bulk of recent increased patent activity is directed to electrolysis development, while patent activity related to production from biomass and waste has decreased.

Electrolysis

Electrolysis is attractive because it’s a low-emission source, meaning that hydrogen produced through electrolysis creates little to no greenhouse gas emissions. It is possible that water electrolyzers are powered by electricity derived from natural gas or fossil fuels, but unlike most other hydrogen production technology, electrolyzers do not produce greenhouse gas emissions and thereby offer the ability to produce hydrogen with net zero carbon emissions.

In this article, we will first briefly explain electrolysis and conventional concepts using electrolysis. Then, we will give an example of a technology that recently emerged from conventional electrolysis-based solutions. We will close with a brief description of alternative technologies for hydrogen production.

State of the Art

Electrolyzers use electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Specifically, an electrolyzer cell includes an anode and a cathode separated by a polymer electrolyte membrane. Water reacts at the anode to form oxygen and positively charged hydrogen ions. The hydrogen ions selectively move across the membrane to the cathode, where they combine with electrons from an external circuit to form hydrogen gas. A number of cells are assembled into a cell stack that efficiently produces hydrogen and oxygen. A standard electrolyzer stack includes membrane electrode assemblies, current collectors, and separator or bipolar plates.

Electrolyzers also range in size and type. Electrolyzer sizes range from small, appliance-size units to large-scale, central production facilities. Electrolyzer types include polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolyzers, alkaline electrolyzers, and solid oxide electrolyzers. Conventional electrolyzer stacks have capacities of 5 MW to 100 MW per stack, depending primarily on the membrane technology.

Emerging Technologies

EvolOh is a California-based startup planning to build the world’s largest hydrogen manufacturing plant in Massachusetts this year to manufacture its anion-exchange membrane (AEM) electrolyzers. The plant will be used for fabrication and assembly of the AEM electrolyzer stacks for producing green hydrogen1. These compact and high-power density electrolyzer stacks should allow for high-speed manufacturing using low-cost materials based on domestic supply chain and no precious metals. With anticipated power ratings of up to 5 MW for a single stack and 50 MW for a single module, EvolOH’s stacks are intended to be designed for large-scale facilities.

As disclosed in EvolOH’s IP, its electrolyzer stack features a bipolar plate assembly including a bipolar plate, a hydrogen seal, a water seal, and a fluid distribution frame. The fluid distribution frame serves multiple purposes within the electrolyzer stack, including containing a cathode flow field, distributing water flow from one water delivery window to a leading edge of the anode flow field, collecting water and oxygen flow from the anode flow field and distributing the flows to oxygen collection windows, and engaging and curing hydrogen seal between the frame and a bipolar plate adjacent to the cathode flow field and a water seal between the frame and a bipolar plate adjacent to the anode flow field.2 In contrast to conventional bipolar plates that include simple flow distribution channels, the bipolar plate assembly of the EvolOH electrolyzer stack is intended to provide for a scalable electrolysis cell that can be utilized in a variety of electrolyzer types.

Also as described in EvolOH’s IP, its electrolyzer stack includes a compression system having a lower wrap and an upper wrap connected at a joint to form a continuous vertical tension boundary around the cell stack and its end units while providing access to opposite lateral ends of the stack.3 Conventional electrolyzer stacks may apply a compressive load on the cell stack using end structural plates drawn together by tie rods and adjustable elements such as screws, nuts, and springs. Unlike the conventional tie rod compression, the compressive system of EvolOH’s electrolyzer stack is intended to maintain adequate compression on the stack over a range of temperatures taking into account thermal expansion and compression.

EvolOH is among many companies focused on the development of electrolyzer technology to scale-up hydrogen to reach a broader market. For example, Air Liquide and Siemens Energy recently teamed up to form a joint venture last year to produce large-scale hydrogen electrolyzers in Europe. Set to open in 2023, they intend to produce a large-scale electrolyzer with an intended capacity of 100 MW that may reduce costs per kW by 33% by 2030. The EPO-IEA study finds that Siemens is one of the leading applicants in electrolyzer patent families since 2011 and that Air Liquide is a top applicant in patent families directed to established hydrogen production technologies as well as hydrogen storage and distribution technologies.

Alternative Hydrogen Production Options

In addition to electrolysis, hydrogen can be produced from other methods such as biomass or waste via gasification or pyrolysis, recovery of by-product hydrogen from chlor-alkali electrolysis, and methane pyrolysis. Hydrogen can be produced from natural gas through methods such as steam reforming, which emits carbon dioxide in the process. Widespread natural gas infrastructure makes hydrogen production from natural gas appealing, and developments in carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology may make this option even more appealing.

In our next post on the EPO-IEA’s report, “Hydrogen Patents for a Clean Energy Future: A Global Trend Analysis of Innovation Along Hydrogen Value Chains,” we will dive into the second technology segment of the hydrogen value chain—hydrogen storage, distribution, and transformation.

Article By Jason A. Engel, Dr. Benjamin Fechner, and Clare Frederick of K&L Gates

For more energy and environment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2023 K & L Gates

Patenting a Nice Cool Glass of Nicotinamide Riboside? Claims Covering Milk Invalid under § 101

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that claims covering a naturally occurring composition were not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 merely because one component of the composition had been “isolated.” ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., Case No. 2022-1116 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2023) (Chen, Prost, Stoll, JJ.)

ChromaDex sued Elysium (a former ChromaDex customer) for infringement of its patent directed to dietary supplements containing nicotinamide riboside (NR). Elysium moved for summary judgment, arguing that the asserted claims were invalid under the § 101 prohibition against patenting natural phenomena. After the district court granted summary judgment, ChromaDex appealed.

The asserted claims were directed to a composition comprising:

  • Isolated NR
  • One or more of tryptophan, nicotinic acid or nicotinamide
  • One of 22 carriers
  • Increased NAD+ biosynthesis after eating.

Both parties conceded that milk satisfies every element of the asserted claims with the exception that its NR is not “isolated.” Both parties also conceded that milk is a naturally occurring material and thus not patent eligible under § 101.

On these facts, the issue presented was whether the claim limitation that the NR must be “isolated” (which does not occur in nature) was sufficient to make the claims patent eligible. The Federal Circuit responded “no.”

The Federal Circuit analyzed the asserted claims under two tests: the “markedly different characteristics” test set out in Chakrabarty, and the Alice two-step test (unsure whether Chakrabarty remains controlling precedent).

Under the Chakrabarty test, a claimed composition is not a natural phenomenon if it has “markedly different characteristics” from what occurs in nature. The Federal Circuit found that ChromaDex’s claimed composition had no markedly different characteristics from natural milk. While ChromaDex argued that isolation potentially allowed for unnaturally high concentrations of NR, the claims did not require such concentrations. The claims included compositions structurally and functionally identical to milk and therefore failed the “markedly different characteristics” Chakrabarty test.

Proceeding to the two-part Alice test, under step 1 the Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to a product of nature because there were no structural differences between the claimed composition and natural milk. Under step two, the Court found that there was no “inventive step” because the claims were merely directed to increasing NAD+ biosynthesis, which was a natural principle that resulted from drinking milk.

Practice Note: During claim drafting, care should be taken to avoid claims that encompass all structural and functional components of a naturally occurring material.

Article By Alexander Piala, PhD of McDermott Will & Emery

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 McDermott Will & Emery

Breaking News – Hermès Makes History With First NFT Trademark Trial Victory

A New York City jury just returned a verdict in favor of Hermès in a historic dispute between the luxury fashion house and digital artist Mason Rothschild over Hermès’ alleged trademark rights relating to Hermès’ famous Birkin handbag. The jury awarded Hermès $133,000 in total damages for trademark infringement, dilution, and cybersquatting.

The jury finding that the First Amendment did not shield Rothschild from liability in connection with his MetaBirkins NFTs project is significant, particularly as this matter involved the first trial by jury to consider the interplay of free speech and trademark protection in the context of NFTs. This decision, which may be appealed, provides guidance for artists, brands, and others seeking ingress into metaverse, including to what extent “real world” intellectual property rights apply to and may be enforced in virtual worlds.

Haute-ly Contested NFTs

Throughout the dispute over this past year, the parties have contested each other’s characterization of the MetaBirkins NFTs. To Hermès, the MetaBirkins NFTs are merely the instruments of a “digital speculator” looking to exploit one of its most exclusive assets via NFTs. In contrast, Rothschild argues that the MetaBirkins NFTs project, a series of 100 NFT images that depict a range of reimagined Hermès Birkin bags featuring a variety of colorful fur, is digital art and a commentary on the famed BIRKIN bag, consumerism, and animal cruelty within the fashion industry. As a result, he argues that the MetaBirkins NFTs are artistic works that should be shielded from liability under the free speech principles of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The nine-member jury disagreed, finding that the MetaBirkins NFTs were more like commodities that are subject to trademark and other laws, rather than artwork. A factor that may have influenced the jury’s decision was evidence suggesting that Rothschild may have seen the MetaBirkins NFTs as a “cash cow.” This may have cast doubt on the authenticity of his characterization of the MetaBirkins NFTs as an art project.

The Test is Yet to Come

Although the jury found the MetaBirkins NFTs to be infringing, the final disposition of this dispute remains pending with the possibility of appeal. Given the importance of the issues at stake, the outcome of this case is bound to be subject to debate regardless of any appeal.

Moreover, while no NFT-specific legal test appears to have emerged from this case and the legal landscape for IP in the Metaverse (and beyond) continues to lack clear guidance, this case has nonetheless provided insight on how courts (and juries) may view the interplay of IP and NFTs. The ultimate outcome of this landmark case is likely to form the basis of the emerging law involving IP rights and NFTs.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more Intellectual Property Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review

With the US Copyright Office (USCO) continuing their stance that protection only extends to human authorship, what will this mean for artificial intelligence (AI)-generated works — and artists — in the future?

Almost overnight, the limited field of Machine Learning and AI has become nearly as accessible to use as a search engine. Apps like Midjourney, Open AI, ChatGPT, and DALL-E 2, allow users to input a prompt into these systems and a bot will generate virtually whatever the user asks for. Microsoft recently announced its decision to make a multibillion-dollar investment in OpenAI, betting on the hottest technology in the industry to transform internet as we know it.[1]

However, with accessibility of this technology growing, questions of authorship and copyright ownership are rising as well. There remain multiple open questions, such as: who is the author of the work — the user, the bot, or the software that produces it? And where is this new generative technology pulling information from?

AI and Contested Copyrights

As groundbreaking as these products are, there has been ample backlash regarding copyright infringement and artistic expression. The stock image company, Getty Images, is suing Stability AI, an artificial intelligence art tool behind Stable Diffusion. Getty Images alleges that Stability AI did not seek out a license from Getty Images to train its system. Although the founder of Stability AI argues that art makes up 0.1% of the dataset and is only created when called by the user’s prompt. In contrast, Shutterstock, one of Getty Images largest competitors, has taken an alternative approach and instead partnered with Open AI with plans to compensate artists for their contributions.

Artists and image suppliers are not the only ones unhappy about the popularity of machine learning.  Creators of open-source code have targeted Microsoft and its subsidiary GitHub, along with OpenAI,  in a proposed class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the creation of AI-powered coding assistant GitHub Copilot is relying on software piracy on an enormous scale. Further, the complaint claims that GitHub relies on copyrighted code with no attribution and no licenses. This could be the first class-action lawsuit challenging the training and output of AI systems. Whether artists, image companies, and open-source coders choose to embrace or fight the wave of machine learning,  the question of authorship and ownership is still up for debate.

The USCO made clear last year that the copyright act only applies to human authorship; however they have recently signaled that in 2023 the office will focus on the legal grey areas surrounding the copyrightability of works generated in conjunction with AI. The USCO denied multiple applications to protect AI authored works previously, stating that the “human authorship” element was lacking. In pointing to previous decisions, such as the 2018 decision that a monkey taking a selfie could not sue for copyright infringement, the USCO reiterated that “non-human expression is ineligible for copyright protection.” While the agency is standing by its conclusion that works cannot be registered if it is exclusively created by an AI, the office is considering the issue of copyright registration for works co-created by humans and AI.

Patent Complexities  

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will have to rethink fundamental patent policies with the rise of sophisticated AI systems as well. As the USPTO has yet to speak on the issue, experts are speculating alternative routes that the office could choose to take: declaring AI inventions unpatentable, which could lead to disputes and hinder the incentive to promote innovation, or concluding that the use of AI should not render otherwise patentable inventions unpatentable, but would lead to complex questions of inventorship. The latter route would require the USPTO to rethink their existing framework of determining inventorship by who conceived the invention.

Takeaway

The degree of human involvement will likely determine whether an AI work can be protected by copyright, and potentially patents. Before incorporating this type of machine learning into your business practices, companies should carefully consider the extent of human input in the AI creation and whether the final work product will be protectable. For example:

  • An apparel company that uses generative AI to create a design for new fabric may not have a protectable copyright in the resulting fabric design.

  • An advertising agency that uses generative AI to develop advertising slogans and a pitch deck for a client may not be able to protect the client from freely utilizing the AI-created work product.

  • A game studio that uses generative AI to create scenes in a video game may not be able to prevent its unlicensed distribution.

  • A logo created for a business endeavor may not be protected unless there are substantial human alterations and input.

  • Code that is edited or created by AI may be able to be freely copied and replicated.

Although the philosophical debate is only beginning regarding what “makes” an artist, 2023 may be a uniquely litigious year defining the extent in which AI artwork is protectable under existing intellectual property laws.

FOOTNOTES

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/tech/microsoft-invests-chatgpt-openai/index.html; https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/12/technology/microsoft-openai-chatgpt.html

Article By Anthony V. Lupo and Dan Jasnow of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP