You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

December 6, 2018

Challenges of Future Intellectual Property Issues for Artificial Intelligence

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Past, Present, and Future of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the combination of science and engineering to create intelligent machines that are able to react and solve problems like humans. Years of rapid and complex development have allowed AI to grow significantly in its capacity and ability to mimic human functions to the point that the main focus has shifted from learning human functions to improving functional efficiency. In 1996, Deep Blue, a chess-playing AI computer developed by IBM, beat the reigning world champion—a human—in a game of chess. Twenty years later, AlphaGo, developed by Alphabet Inc., defeated the world’s best player of the board game Go.  

With such astonishing innovation arriving in the blink of an eye, AI has raised public concerns regarding the unpredictable intelligence and capabilities of machines learning at increasingly exponential rates, and what intellectual property (IP) implications might arise in the near future.

Creation and Ownership Challenges

Now that AI is able to produce poetry and artwork, generate 3D printing, and develop inventions without any human involvement, concerns about ownership have been raised. Because AI is able to create works that would otherwise be recognized as IP created by a human, people have started to ask whether AI deserves a special status in IP. In accordance with that, would the software developer(s) of an AI be entitled to the work created by that AI? And if the user of the AI continually inputs new sources of information for the AI to learn, resulting in newly created IP, would the user be entitled to own the created IP?

Currently, in order to be protected under copyright law, work must originate from an author’s own sufficient skills, labor, and judgment. This law poses a great challenge when trying to determine whether or not AI has used these factors sufficiently to produce such work. In addition, for a patent to be granted, an invention must include novelty, inventive steps, and applicability. The evolving nature of AI, built to simplify human effort, offers new solutions to existing problems that could consequently result in qualifying as patentable inventions.

While the argument on the recognition of AI creations is not yet settled, the topic has continually raised other consequential issues. For example, even if AI were able to receive IP recognition, who would be able to commercialize the exclusive rights? Also, if ownership is given to the AI developer as a reward for effort and investment, why would the developer—involved only during the input stage—be rewarded for the final output stage as well? Finally, if the last option is for works produced by AI to fall into the public domain, why would developers put forth the mental and financial efforts to develop AI with vigor?

Possible Solutions

Despite the challenges and controversy, a realistic and applicable solution to handle the current situation must be found. The results produced through AI are either an outcome of its own intelligence or an algorithm. If the functions of the machine are purely mechanical, rather than inventive, AI might be considered as lacking creativity. First, however, a distinction between deep-learning—the process in which AI can recognize and understand information and data, supervised or not—and general-purpose algorithms must be made.

The existing law of any country would not identify AI as an author or creator of IP. Therefore, AI would not be granted ownership unless it is able to achieve legal status similar to humans. Most countries’ IP laws require a rights holder to have legal personhood—something that AI lacks. Soon enough, AI might be able to surpass human intelligence and lead humankind to new discoveries, which the law must be able to protect. Eventually, if AI is able to prove independent creativity, it could be considered as a potential author, apart from the human author under copyright. Machines that are able to develop and further their capacity through learning and training—as opposed to those that operate step-by-step algorithms—could be eligible for patent ownership.

When we look at the objectives of IP law, the main policy exists to grant exclusive rights for inventors/creators in order for them to enjoy the privileges produced through their respective works. On a similar note, if AI were granted these same rights, it is doubtful that it would be able to appreciate the achievement or enjoy the resulting privileges. However, valuing new works that benefit the public is a fundamental goal of IP law, and excluding such works from rights would be inconsistent with the law, as well as the public interest, and would be contrary to the push for greater knowledge and creativity that leads to the betterment of the human condition.

One possible solution for regulating the continued development of AI is to establish a broad scope of possible creations that a software developer might anticipate their machine to be used for. The developer can then define that scope explicitly in the user agreement, making any listed product a creation of the developer. Certainly, this agreement can be altered based on negotiations with the user and whether the parties agree that the user can claim ownership of the results of the creations generated by the user’s own skills, labor, and judgment.

Liability Challenges

If AIs are able to create, it is worth considering that they might also be liable in certain circumstances. AI that analyzes a company’s investment strategies or personalizes big data to a tailor-made marketing advertisement, by way of auto-copying information, might be subject to claims of infringement of copyright, trade secrets, or even data privacy. In the same manner, a computer that produces poetry or artwork or generates 3D printing could be accused of copyright or trademark infringement if it uses others’ IP without requesting authorization. Finally, a self-learning machine that develops a precise and quick process could be accused of patent infringement for using protected technology without knowing that it was already patented. The question that arises from all of these situations is, who is liable?

Possible Solution

There are concerns that AI may be able to carry out wrongful operations despite the active control of a human. In that case, who would be liable for any damages? There are many circumstances and factors that would need to be considered. In situations where users of AI should be able to foresee an outcome, or are in charge of handling    and caring for the AI, then they may be considered liable. However, if AI eventually becomes independent and can function without any direct programming, developing through self-learning and going beyond predictability, then liability could fall onto the AI itself. It would be challenging to attribute the fault solely to AI, and unrealistic to hold AI responsible for any damages.

This leads back to the question about the legal status of AI, which, if unanswered, would mean that the creator of the AI would be subject to liability. The law should be written in a way to ensure that humans maintain control and retain the ability to override any decision made by AI. With the creator as the owner and liable party, there should be specific sanctions for AI (i.e., destruction or prohibition of certain users) to protect innocent creators and users alike. However, even if the law reduces or eliminates the creator’s liability, it should not encourage or allow companies to shift liabilities toward their AI creations.

Legislation

Due to their dynamic nature and humankind’s continued new creations, it is common to see IP laws changed and updated from time to time. Legislative changes to existing IP laws might be required in order to establish regulations for IP works created solely by AI to decide which creations should reside in the public domain, and which parties should be entitled and recognized as the owners of IP resulting from the creation by AI. A suggested step toward governing AI is for all countries to recognize the same boundaries and fundamentals of AI creations and construct legislation covering each country’s regulatory framework and remedies.

Moving Forward

Without specific legislation governing the recognition  of AI under IP law at this stage, present challenges can be resolved through a clear agreement between relevant parties (i.e., the AI developer and user), in order to utilize and commercialize IP created by AI.

Sophia, a humanoid robot that uses AI, was granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia—the first robot to be granted citizenship—and in turn, thanked the country for the great honor. Sooner or later, other AI will receive recognitions  of increasing importance for their contributions to society. It will not be long before AI dramatically affects what it means to be human, a thought that can be both compelling and frightening. Nevertheless, the unwavering line for the creation of works recognized under IP law,  and the possible liability consequences caused by artificial intelligence,  must be addressed in order to help balance the commercialization and utilization of new creations that benefit the public interest and facilitate the true objectives of intellectual property law.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More
June 26, 2025
As modern business strategies increasingly embrace sustainability, the influence of ESG principles is reshaping product design, packaging, and brand protection. From label-free bottles to the legal importance of 3D marks in Thailand, these developments highlight the growing connection between environmental responsibility and intellectual property. The Rise of ESG ESG principles have become critical in shaping business strategies worldwide. Companies are increasingly required to disclose ESG data, which influences investor decisions, loans, and consumer behavior. Studies show that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable packaging, and businesses with strong ESG commitments often achieve higher growth rates. Product Minimization Trend One sector experiencing significant transformation is the consumer product industry, where brands worldwide are adapting their packaging to align with ESG principles. A notable approach is packaging minimization, exemplified by Pepsi’s introduction of its first label-free PET bottle in China in 2022. Similarly, in Thailand, several bottled water brands have embraced label-free designs, including Sprinkle drinking water’s “Redesign to Reduce” initiative and other similar efforts. These shifts not only enhance brand perception but are also warmly welcomed by consumers and business associates alike. For instance, Cathay Pacific has introduced label-free bottled water on select flights and cabins as part of their ongoing commitment to boosting onboard recycling efforts. From Design to Distinctiveness with 3D Marks Packaging has evolved into a critical component of brand identity, blending functionality with distinctiveness to strengthen consumer recognition and loyalty. This shift carries significant implications for intellectual property. Protecting these designs is no longer optional but essential, given their substantial commercial value. Securing legal protection—whether through design rights or three-dimensional (3D) trademarks—has become a strategic necessity. In an era shaped by sustainability and innovation, safeguarding distinctive packaging is not just a precaution but a fundamental step in maintaining competitive advantage and ensuring enduring brand
Read More
June 20, 2025
In a decisive move to strengthen its trade position and reinforce commitments under ongoing tariff negotiations with the United States, the government of Vietnam has made a concerted effort to improve intellectual property enforcement within the country. A key catalyst for this was the prime minister issuing a decision requesting all authorities to initiate sweeping enforcement actions to crack down on counterfeit goods across all provinces. Our firm has been actively involved in these operations. Working in close coordination with Vietnam’s Market Surveillance Authority, Customs, and Border Police, the firm has been instrumental in planning, intelligence gathering, and on-site enforcement. Key operations were conducted in major commercial hubs, including Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. In Hanoi, we collaborated with Market Surveillance Team No. 1 to inspect a major wholesaler in Hang Giay. These inspections resulted in the seizure of a significant volume of counterfeit perfumes and the identification of key suppliers within the illegal trade network. In Ho Chi Minh City, our firm supported large-scale inspection campaigns at well-known markets, including Saigon Square. Acting on intelligence, authorities executed multiple raids targeting shops and stalls notorious for selling counterfeit branded products. Specialists from our firm provided logistical support and real-time analysis to ensure swift and effective intervention. Beyond Vietnam’s urban centers, efforts extended to critical border zones in northern and central Vietnam. We worked with Customs and Border Police at major checkpoints to inspect high-risk shipments suspected of containing counterfeit goods. These operations led to the interception of several container loads of illicit products. The nationwide campaign also included targeted actions in several provinces known as hubs for storage and distribution. In Bac Giang, Da Nang, Hai Phong, Kien Giang, and Dong Nai, we assisted in coordinated raids on medium- to large-scale warehouses and distribution centers. These inspections uncovered
Read More
June 17, 2025
On January 9, 2025, the Lao official gazette published the newly amended Decision on Trade Inspection Implementation No. 0019/MOIC, dated January 6, 2025. This decision aims to establish principles and rules for trade officers to inspect, fine, and take measures against violators of trade laws and their related regulations on business competition, business operations, and intellectual property rights to protect consumers and business operators in Laos. Changes in Trade Inspection Procedures Previously, trade inspection officers, operating independently under the central Ministry of Industry and Commerce (MOIC) or the provincial-level Department of Industry and Commerce (DOIC), were responsible for administrative raid actions focusing exclusively on intellectual property issues. However, following the enactment of Decision No. 0019/MOIC, trade inspection officers will now be grouped into the Trade Officers Unit, which will also include business competition officers and consumer protection officers. This unit will conduct and participate in raids, considering not only intellectual property laws but also competition and consumer protection laws when imposing penalties on infringers. Trade Inspection Authority Levels Trade inspection implementation is overseen by authorities at three levels: Central level: Department of Business Competition and Trade Inspection, MOIC. The MOIC handles trade inspection work covering all provinces in Laos. Provincial level: DOIC offices in provinces and Vientiane handle trade inspections covering two or more districts. District level: Office of the Industry and Commerce offices in districts. Violations Individuals, legal entities, and organizations violating the newly amended trade inspection decision, the Decree on Trade Inspection, or other related regulations will be educated about the issue, warned, disciplined (for government servants), fined, subject to compensation for damage incurred, or punished by the relevant laws, depending on the gravity of the violation. Trade Violations Violations of trade laws and regulations concerning business operations will result in fines and additional measures. Examples include:
Read More