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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More