Contact
Contact

The Supreme Court has today confirmed that artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot currently be named as an inventor on a patent application in the UK. It has also confirmed that an owner of an AI system that creates a new invention is not entitled to a patent for that invention simply by virtue of owning the AI system.

Background

This case concerns two UK patent applications filed in 2018 for inventions allegedly created by an AI system called “DABUS” (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience). The patent applications were filed by Dr Stephen Thaler (the creator and owner of DABUS), but DABUS was named as the inventor on each application.

Sections 7(3) and 13(2) of the Patents Act 1977 define the inventor of a UK patent application as the “actual deviser” of an invention and that the applicant must identify the “person” they believe to be the inventor. Section 7(2) also states that a patent may be granted primarily to the inventor or to any person entitled by agreement or rule of law, or their successor in title.

Applicants for patents at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) are therefore required to file a statement of inventorship and, if the applicant is not the inventor, to indicate how they derived the right to be granted a patent.

In the case of Dr Thaler’s applications, he not only indicated that DABUS was the inventor but also maintained that he himself was not an inventor. He asserted that he was entitled to grant of the patents by virtue of owning DABUS.

At a hearing in November 2019, Dr Thaler’s arguments were rejected by the UK Intellectual Property Office on two grounds:

(a) DABUS is non-human so is not a “person” as envisaged by section 7 or section 13 of the Patents Act, and therefore cannot be an inventor, and

(b) Dr Thaler is not entitled to apply for these patents simply by virtue of owning DABUS, since DABUS – not being a “person” – had neither any rights that could be transferred, nor any power to transfer anything that it might have owned.

Accordingly, the applications were held to be withdrawn upon expiry of the period for providing the statement of inventorship.

Dr Thaler appealed this refusal, but his appeal was dismissed in the High Court and subsequently the Court of Appeal in September 2021 (on a 2:1 majority). This was then appealed further to the Supreme Court, who have now also dismissed the appeal.

The Judgment

The Supreme Court considered this appeal to be concerned with the relatively narrow question of how the relevant provisions of the Patents Act 1977 should be interpreted, rather than a broader policy consideration of whether the meaning of the term “inventor” should be expanded to allow AI systems to be named as inventors.

On the first issue of whether DABUS could be named as an inventor, the Supreme Court unanimously found that an inventor must be a natural person. Lord Kitchin noted that, at the time of drawing up the Patents Act, Parliament did not contemplate the possibility that an AI system acting on its own could devise an invention, so the laws are not intended to cover this possibility.

The second issue, namely whether Dr Thaler was entitled to the grant of a patent for the inventions created by DABUS, has also been answered with a “no”. Lord Kitchin explained that since DABUS cannot be and has never been an inventor, and that Dr Thaler has himself admitted that he is not an inventor, there is no link between Dr Thaler and an inventor (i.e. no link of the type provided for in the Patents Act, such as an employer-employee relationship or other succession in title). As the Patents Act provides a “complete code” for the purpose of determining the right to apply for and obtain a patent, which starts with the inventor, then the absence of an inventor must cause the application to fail.

Although Dr Thaler argued that as the owner of DABUS he was entitled to the grant of patents for inventions created by it under the doctrine of accession (in the same way that a farmer owns a calf born to his cow), this argument was also dismissed. The Court held that on the basis that an invention is not tangible property, there is no basis for the application of the principle of accession.

Finally, the third issue considered was whether the UKIPO was correct to treat Dr Thaler’s applications as withdrawn. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts that Dr Thaler did not meet the requirements of Section 13(2) of the Patents Act, so his applications were rightfully deemed withdrawn.

Comments

This judgment is consistent with the current laws on inventorship and entitlement, although as flagged by Lord Kitchin, this is partly due to the fact that they were drawn up some time ago before issues of AI inventorship would have been envisaged. However, with the increasingly rapid development and adoption of generative AI, these issues are unlikely to go away any time soon.

It is worth noting that the Supreme Court emphasised that neither the UKIPO nor the courts investigated Dr Thaler’s assertions of fact, namely that the inventions were generated autonomously by DABUS and that Dr Thaler was not an inventor. Indeed, it is not the function of the UKIPO to investigate the factual correctness of such statements. As recognised by the Supreme Court, the outcome may well have been different if Dr Thaler had asserted that he was an inventor who had merely used DABUS “as a highly sophisticated tool”.

Although corresponding cases in Australia and South Africa found that an AI machine could be named as an inventor, for the time being applicants in the UK will therefore need to identify the human inventors who have devised the invention. In the context of AI-generated or AI-assisted inventions, this still leaves several grey areas in determining who should be named as an inventor – for example, whether it should be the creator, owner or user of the AI system, or even someone who has identified the inventive concept of an invention created by an AI system.

We look forward to seeing how patent law in the UK and overseas continues to respond to challenges posed by AI.

Following an extended 14-day conference in the UAE, the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference(COP28) concluded on the 13th of December 2023. As ever, the annual climate conference beings together delegates from across the world to set the course for the future of the green economy.

Following COP21 and the almost unanimous decision to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5°C, these conferences typically focus on ways and means to meet this target, for instance by limiting the emission of carbon dioxide (one of the largest contributors to climate warming).

A move away from fossil fuels

One major outcome of COP28 was the agreement to transition away from fossil fuels in the energy sector ‘in a just, orderly and equitable manner’. This is to be achieved by a rapid expansion in renewable energy production and exploring emerging technologies such as carbon capture, usage, and storage (CCUS). Being hailed as the most important agreement for the climate since COP21, technologies that address this issue are likely to become a key sector of growth over the coming years.

Whilst the agreement was limited to the energy sector, away from COP28 we have seen numerous developments this year in the decarbonisation of those sectors which are more reliant on fossil fuels; namely the aviation and automotive sectors. The first transatlantic flight by a sustainably fuelled jet airliner took place just two days before the opening day of COP28, potentially paving the way for reducing the emissions of the most difficult sector to decarbonise. Furthermore sustainable fuels continue to see potential in the automotive sector, including in motorsport.

Green Climate Fund

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was founded at COP17 on the basis of richer countries (historically responsible for the most carbon emissions) providing funding to mitigate the effects of climate change in poorer countries (often disproportionally affected by climate change). COP28 saw the GCF rise to $12.8Bn pledged from 31 countries and forms part of a larger commitment set out at COP15 for developed countries to commit $100Bn per annum towards affected countries. One of the purposes of the GCF is to accelerate and scale up climate innovation, including by encouraging more widespread adoption of proven climate solutions by enhancing financing of climate investments.  With the continued growth of the GCF, we might expect more investment to become available for innovators in this area.

Whilst not without its controversies, COP28 stands to reaffirm the importance of cleantech and the potential opportunities for innovation, particularly in the energy sector and in technologies relating to the replacement of fossil fuels in other sectors.

At Mathys & Squire, we work with many cleantech clients on green technology breakthroughs and sustainable solutions. We are pleased to partner with companies and inventors who are addressing climate change and whose initiatives further the objectives set forth by COP28.

The outcome of the test case filed by Mathys & Squire to secure public access to evidence in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is expected early in 2024. Commentary provided by Mathys & Squire has been featured in JUVE Patent, Law 360, the Solicitors Journal and World Intellectual Property Review.

An extended version of the press release is available below.

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has now set a schedule for hearing an appeal which is likely to be determinative on the rights of the public to access evidence and pleadings filed with the Court.

Two weeks ago, Mathys & Squire brought a test case before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the UPC arguing that, by default, evidence and pleadings filed with the Court should normally be made available to third parties on request and that access should only be restricted when it is absolutely necessary to protect confidential or personal information.[1]

Mathys & Squire also applied to intervene in an appeal where a party is seeking to overturn the decision of a judge in the UPC’s Nordic-Baltic division to permit a third party to obtain copies of evidence and pleadings.[2]

The appeal pending before the UPC Court of Appeal has now been assigned to the second panel of the Court of Appeal with judge Ingeborg Simonsson being appointed as the judge-rapporteur for the appeal. Ms. Simonsson has been a full time judge in the Swedish courts since 2008 and in 2020 was appointed Judge in the Svea Court of Appeal and the Patent and Market Court of Appeal.[3]

Judge Simonsson has now set a 15-day deadline for the parties to comment on Mathys & Squire’s application to intervene. She will then make a decision as to whether or not to accept Mathys & Squire’s application. The parties will then be given a further 15 days to submit written arguments to the court on the substance of the appeal. An oral hearing will then be held on 15 February 2024.

Nicholas Fox, Partner at Mathys & Squire, says: “We welcome the appointment of Judge Simonsson as judge-rapporteur in the appeal. The Swedish Courts have an exceptionally long history of transparency and openness, and the principle of public access is considered an essential principle of Swedish law. Judge Simonsson will be an excellent judge to consider this appeal.”

The case pending before the Munich Section of the Central Division has been stayed pending the outcome of the Appeal.[4] 

Alexander Robinson, Partner at Mathys & Squire, says: “The decision to stay the proceedings pending the Court of Appeal decision supports our arguments that we have a legal interest in the appeal and should be allowed to intervene.”

In the cases being brought, Mathys & Squire are being represented by Nicholas Fox and Alexander Robinson, partners from our London office, and Andreas Wietzke, a partner from our Munich office.

[1]  Pending as case no. APP_588681/2023. A copy of the arguments that Mathys & Squire submitted to the court is available here.

[2] Case No. APL_584498/2023,

[3] A biography of Judge Simonsson can be found here.

[4] Preliminary Order UPC_CFI_75/2023

Four Mathys & Squire Partners, Anna Gregson, Dani Kramer, Sean Leach, and Martin MacLean, have been recognised in the 2024 edition of IAM Strategy 300 Global Leaders.

Since its inception, the guide has been a platform that highlights the top experts within the field of intellectual property (IP). Securing a spot in the esteemed IAM Strategy 300 Global Leaders is a testament to a professional’s strategic prowess in intellectual property, as recognised by peers across various domains.

IAM says: Anna Gregson couples a nuanced understanding of patent law with a deep knowledge of the biotechnology and life sciences industries to provide holistic and proactive strategic advice. She leaves no stone unturned in her analyses in order to deliver the best possible result for her clients.

Read Anna’s full interview here.

IAM says: Highly experienced patent attorney, Dani Kramer brings a vast knowledge of the law and experience at the European Patent Office. He is the go-to practitioner for providing guidance when dealing with complicated and sensitive cases at the EPO.

Read Dani’s full interview here.

IAM says: Sean Leach is a big picture thinker who effectively finds and maximises the commercial value for clients in the hard technology sector. He pairs immense technical knowledge with an understanding of his clients’ commercial goals to deliver top-tier strategic advice.

Read Sean’s full interview here.

IAM says: Martin MacLean is a dynamic and agile attorney who masterfully devises creative IP solutions. He goes above and beyond to meet and exceed client expectations and dives into the details of their business to ensure his advice aligns neatly with their commercial goals.

Read Martin’s full interview here.

We would like to express our thanks to every client, contact, and peer who dedicated their time to engage in the research process. 

The full 2024 edition of the guide is available here.

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has published new guidance setting out that patent examiners should not object to inventions involving an artificial neural network (ANN) under the “program for a computer” exclusion of section 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977.

On 21 November 2023 the UK High Court handed down its judgement in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] EWHC 2948 (Ch). The judgement related to whether an invention involving an ANN constituted excluded subject matter as a “program for a computer … as such” under section 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977.  

The judgement held that the trained ANN of the claimed invention was not a computer program at all and thus did not engage the relevant exclusion. The judgement also held that, in any case, the invention involved a substantive technical contribution going beyond a program for a computer “as such”. 

Following this judgement, the UKIPO temporarily suspended their guidelines for examining patent applications relating to artificial intelligence (AI) inventions (see here) and published brief new guidance (see here).  Under the new guidance, patent examiners should not object to inventions involving an ANN under the “program for a computer” exclusion of section 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977.

Notably, the judgement did not address whether an invention involving an ANN constitutes excluded subject matter as being a “mathematical method … as such” under section 1(2)(a) of the Patents Act 1977, which is another objection that is often raised in relation to AI and machine learning inventions.

This is a significant development which might, for the time being at least, make it easier for applicants to obtain patents for AI inventions in the UK.  It remains to be seen whether the judgement will be appealed.

A piece by Partner Nicholas Fox and Technical Assistants Daniel Johnston and Grace Heredge Thomas has been featured in The Law Society Gazette, giving an insight into the challenges that the Unified Patent Court (UPC) presents to English patent litigators.

An extended version of the press release is available below.

The UPC is a new court which has been established to provide a forum for hearing disputes over unitary patents which provide patent protection extending over 17 EU member states. In addition, the UPC has jurisdiction to enforce and revoke patents granted by the European patent office in force in those member states. Prior to the establishment of the UPC, enforcement of such patents could only take place on a country-by country basis and one of the main rationales for the new court was to remove duplication of enforcement proceedings.

In the first few months of its existence, filing figures at the UPC have been robust with over 100 already having been filed at the court. In contrast, the volume of patent litigation in the English courts has been falling in recent years, whereas 85 cases were filed with the English Patents Court in 2017, that number fell to only 35 last year with a similar number of cases expected to be filed this year.

This puts English patent solicitors in a quandary. The English Patents court was a forum of choice for settling high profile international patent disputes, with the highly competent patent judges and rigorous testing of expert evidence through cross-examination making the English courts a preferred venue for challenging the validity of granted patents. The initial signs of success for the UPC indicate that this position is likely to be challenged. The rules of procedure for the UPC were designed by cherry-picking the best aspects of English and European court litigation with a view to making the court as suitable as possible for hearing patent disputes. Through greater emphasis on documentary evidence and a more targeted approach to cross-examination, the costs of litigation in the UPC are expected to be significantly lower than in the English Patents Court. At the same time, the rules do provide for a much stronger role for the presentation and challenge of expert evidence than in the case in main continental court systems.

Further, one of the attractions of the UPC is that it is expected that a significant proportion of the litigation conducted in the new court will be in English. Actions to revoke a patent are required to be brought in the language in which a patent was prosecuted which in around 80% of cases is English. Litigants normally have a choice of languages to use when enforcing a patent in the UPC, but in almost all cases litigating in English will be an option and in a recent case brought in the Dutch division of the UPC, the court acceded to a defendant’s request to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English on the grounds that would be of assistance to a defendant based in Spain.

Unfortunately, most English patent solicitors will be locked out from this new court system. The UPC only permits lawyers qualified in the EU to litigate before the court and requires such lawyers to hold EU nationality. Following Brexit and the UK’s departure from the EU, only a handful of English lawyers have the right to litigate in the new court, typically through a fortuitous combination of ancestry and cross-qualification as lawyers in Ireland.

The situation of English solicitors is in marked contrast to that of UK patent attorneys. Virtually all UK patent attorneys are qualified to act before the European Patent Office – a patent granting organization based in Munich and the Hague which as it was established under a treaty which was separate from the founding treaties of the European Union has been unaffected by Brexit. Over 970 UK patent attorneys, representing about a third of patent attorneys based in the UK have registered to act before the UPC on the basis rights to conduct litigation acquired pre-Brexit. Unlike lawyers appearing before the court, there are no restrictions that attorneys must have EU nationality.

In the face of dwindling numbers of patent disputes being heard in the English Patents Court, this cadre of patent attorneys presents English patent solicitors with an opportunity. Historically, patent attorneys have only had a supporting role in English patent litigation with almost all English based litigation being overseen by solicitors specialising in patent law. Patent attorneys have, however, long represented clients in opposition proceedings before the European patent office which enable third parties to challenge the grant of patents. Such opposition proceedings are heavily influenced by civil law approaches to litigation in Europe and share many similarities with revocation proceeding before the UPC. The challenge facing English patent litigators will be how to leverage this cadre of patent attorneys qualified to litigate in the UPC in order to capture a share of UPC litigation market.

Mathys & Squire has filed a test case to secure public access to evidence in the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Commentary provided by Mathys & Squire has been featured in Commercial Dispute Resolution, The Global Legal Post, JUVE Patent, Kluwer Patent Blog, Law 360, Managing IP, The Patent Lawyer and World Intellectual Property Review.

An extended version of the press release is available below.

Mathys & Squire has brought a test case to try to improve the transparency of the operations of the UPC.[1]

The Unified Patent Court Agreement requires that proceedings before the court are to be open to the public unless the Court decides to make them confidential in the interests of the parties, affected persons or in the general interest of justice or public order.[2]

It was for that purpose that, throughout the drafting process of the Court’s rules of procedure, provision was made that written pleadings and evidence would be accessible by third parties on request.

Two recent decisions[3] of the Central Division of the UPC, have, however, interpreted the Rules of Procedure in a restrictive manner limiting access to third parties who the Court considers can demonstrate that they have a “concrete and verifiable, legitimate reason” to access documents filed with the court. In practice, this means most if not all members of the public will be unable to access evidence and pleadings pending before the court.

We consider that the way that the Central Division has interpreted the Rules of Procedure is wrong.

It is in the public interest that the public can inform themselves about the strengths and weaknesses of cases pending before the UPC so that they can make commercial decisions about the patents which are being sought to be revoked or enforced in the Court. Further we consider that openness and transparency is vital in order for the public to be able to hold the court to account.

The principles of openness and transparency in Court proceedings and the rights of third parties to access public documents are well established principles in International and European law. Many European courts provide third parties with free access to pleadings and evidence filed with their courts.

Indeed, the European Patent Office, which has the power to revoke European and Unitary Patents after grant in opposition proceedings is a paragon of openness in this respect as all pleadings and written evidence filed in such proceedings is made available for download from the European patent register subject only to narrowly defined exceptions where confidentiality is required to protect personal or confidential information.[4]

In view of the importance of this matter, Mathys & Squire have filed a test case asking the Central Division to reconsider its restrictive approach. Mathys & Squire have also filed to intervene in an Appeal where a party is seeking to overturn the decision of a judge in the UPC’s Nordic-Baltic division to permit a third party to obtain copies evidence and pleadings.

Copies of the pleading we have submitted to the Central Division can be accessed here.

In the cases being brought, Mathys & Squire are being represented by Nicholas Fox and Alexander Robinson, partners from our London office, and Andreas Wietzke, a partner from our Munich office.

[1] The case is pending application APP_588681/2023

[2] Article 45 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement

[3] Order no. 550152 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_459505/2023 issued 20 September 2023 (UPC number UPC_CFI_1/2023) & Order no. 552745 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_464985/2023 issued on 21 September 2023 (UPC number UPC_CFI_75/2023).

[4] Article 128 EPC and Rules 144-147 EPC.

A piece by Managing Associate Laura Clews has been featured in Volume 2 of the Sustainable Food Digest by Food Matters Live, giving an insight into patents related to environmentally friendly food packaging.

An extended version of the press release is available below.

Due to their low cost of manufacture, versatility and durability, plastics quickly became an established material for packaging food and drink products. However, there has been a growing concern around the disposal of these non-biodegradable materials. Food and drink packaging formed 83% of household plastic waste produced in the UK in 2022, and of the 2.5 million metric tons of plastic waste generated in 2021, only 44% was recycled. The remainder is typically sent to incinerators and controlled landfills, which do not provide a long-term solution for ever increasing amounts of waste.

Consumers are therefore calling for the use of more environmentally friendly packaging which can degrade without releasing toxins. Manufacturers must ensure that packaging material has sufficient strength to contain and protect the product through its transport, storage and distribution. In the food and drink industry, it is also imperative that materials do not leach any undesirable chemicals into/onto the product. Additionally, packaging must provide a suitable water vapour transmission rate (WVTR) and oxygen permeability coefficient as the amount of moisture and oxygen present can affect the shelf life of the product. Producing cost-effective packaging is also important as most consumers are only willing to pay a small premium for environmentally friendly products.

Fortunately, the food and drink industry has risen to this challenge and many new and innovative packaging materials have been developed in recent years.

Edible Packaging

The concept of edible packaging and containers is not new – Italo Marchiony’s patent directed to a mould for ice cream cups was granted in 1903. However, many of the latest developments in edible packaging have centred around nutritious seaweed. At the London Marathon 2019, runners were offered “Oohho” by Notpla, edible seaweed pouches filled with a sports drink, in a bid to replace 200,000 single use plastic bottles. The capsules can be bitten to release the liquid inside and if the consumer prefers not to eat the seaweed film, it will naturally break down within 4 to 6 weeks once discarded.

Notpla’s patent application (GB 2,612,816) teaches that the edible membranes are produced by extracting a cellulose polymer from seaweed which is then pumped through a die to create two ribbons or films. The desired liquid is then injected between the two ribbons/films which are subsequently sealed.

Evoware have also utilised seaweed to produce edible packaging, creating containers, straws, cutlery, and even edible Ello Jello cups. These are formed by hydrating seaweed to create a slurry which is then cast and dried in the required form (WO 2014/108887).

As an alternative approach to edible containers, Italian designer Enrique Luis Sardi produced a new coffee cup for Lavazza in 2003. The design comprised a pastry dough molded into the form of a cup and a patented icing sugar coating on the inner surface, creating a waterproof barrier whilst also sweetening the coffee it contained. The cookie cup can be consumed after use, which could eliminate some of the 2.5 billion disposable coffee cups used each year in the UK, and provide a delightful snack.

Other Food-Based Packaging

For most adults, coffee is not simply a drink choice, but an essential for day-to-day life. It has been reported that in the UK, 500,000 tonnes of used coffee grounds are produced every year, most of which ends up on landfill sites. Fortunately, Kaffeeform, has found a way to repurpose this waste, creating durable cups formed from recycled coffee grounds and other plant-based resources that are hardened with biopolymers.

Thermoplastic Cellulose

Some companies have turned to plant power to create environmentally friendly packaging materials similar to plastics, including VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, who have developed a thermoplastic cellulose material.

As the most abundant renewable organic polymer, the use of cellulose as a packaging material is highly desirable. However, it cannot be thermally processed and is virtually insoluble in traditional solvents. In order to impart thermoplastic properties, modification of cellulose is required. In the patent application filed by VTT (WO 2016/193542), the physical and chemical properties of a thermoplastic cellulose material are achieved by decreasing the molar mass of raw cellulose using a hydrolysis process and a long chain fatty acid modification. The material formed can reportedly be moulded to a desired shape using heat and processed using traditional plastic treatment processes. These materials are reported to be mechanically strong, provide excellent WVTR properties, and good heat-sealability.

Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs)

PHAs are a class of bio-derived, biodegradable polymers which have tuneable properties ranging from rigid-brittle to rubber. They are compostable thermoplastics, and include natural polyesters produced by bacterial fermentation of sugar, glucose, or vegetable oil feedstock. The versatility of PHAs makes them a suitable candidate for a wide range of applications, providing a viable alternative to fossil fuel-derived plastics. Cambridge Consultants have developed a range of food and drink containers and utensils formed from PHAs.

The global biodegradable packaging market reached over $440 billion in 2021 and is expected to continue to increase. In addition, the global consumable packaging market was valued at $697 million in 2016 and is on track to reach $1.10 billion in 2023. As the development of more environmentally friendly packaging materials has the potential to create significant revenue for manufacturers, it is unsurprising that companies at the forefront of this research are looking to protect their intellectual property in advance of any product launch.

The United Nations’ 28th Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP28) will run from 30 November – 12 December 2023 at Expo City, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE). The conference brings together politicians, activists, citizens, and business representatives from over 190 countries to set the course for the future of the green economy.

According to the United Nations (UN), “climate change is the defining crisis of our time and it is happening even more quickly than we feared.” Therefore, it is no surprise that COP28 is set to be one of the largest and most important international gatherings of 2023, with over 70,000 delegates expected to attend, including heads of state and leaders from 197 countries around the world.

Since the inception of the Paris Agreement at COP21 in 2015, UN member countries have been committed to keeping average global temperature rises around 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels and strengthening the world’s ability to adapt to the effects of climate change.

COP28 will present an opportunity to achieve further progress towards the goals of the Paris Agreement. The COP28 agenda will also be focused on four additional ‘paradigm shifts.’

1) Fast tracking the energy transition and slashing emissions before 2030

COP28 aims to significantly reduces emissions and builds on the progress made during previous summits. In particular, COP28 aims to accelerate mitigation efforts to develop decarbonisation strategies aligned with the Paris Agreement, implement carbon market and non-market approaches to attract investments, ensuring a faster transition towards a fossil-free energy system.

The COP28 Presidency, in partnership with global state and industry collaborators, is advancing a comprehensive energy plan in alignment with scientific recommendations. This plan includes a focus on tripling renewable energy capacity, reducing oil and gas emissions, transitioning high-emission sectors to low-carbon technologies, promoting fossil-free transportation, and accelerating the phaseout of unabated coal power, while encouraging action, transparency, and accountability from companies and countries in line with global standards.

2) Deliver old promises and set the framework for a new deal on finance

According to the COP28 Presidency, finance is essential for climate action, especially in developing countries, but the current financial system is inadequate to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, as those will require over $2.4 trillion annually by 2030. COP28 will urge the leaders of the developed countries to fund the Green Climate Fund, double adaptation finance by 2025, and scaleup adaptation efforts.

COP28 will aim to establish a new financial architecture, promoting dialogue on finance principles and reforming international financial institutions. This approach also seeks innovative solutions to mobilise private capital through regulatory reforms and voluntary carbon markets, accelerating climate progress in developing nations.

3) Put nature, people, lives, and livelihoods at the heart of climate action

COP28 will focus on addressing the impacts of climate change by prioritising adaptation, enhancing adaptation finance and ensuring support for those facing severe climate impacts. The conference emphasises a Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) framework, which aims to promote efforts on nature, food, health, water, and relief, and champions conservation and adaptation, highlighting the roles of women and indigenous peoples, while addressing climate-related humanitarian and security challenges through initiatives like Early Warnings for All and the Risk-informed Early Action Partnership.

4) Mobilise for the most inclusive COP

COP28 will prioritise inclusivity, collaborating with diverse groups for active participation, emphasising gender balance, and promoting indigenous peoples’ access to finance. The Youth Climate Champion, Minister Shamma Al Mazrui, strengthens youth engagement through initiatives like the International Youth Delegates program, calling for continued support. The COP28 program embraces innovation and inclusivity, addressing various topics, and urges commitment to multilevel partnerships.

COP28 will set the course for the future of the green economy, and the four paradigm shifts will serve as a blueprint for the immediate action that might expect from the leaders attending the conference. We also expect governments to continue to implement local policies to support innovation in cleantech. All solutions and innovative concepts helping to fulfil the green agenda and mitigate climate change should be protected, and the best way to do so is with help of intellectual property rights.

At Mathys & Squire, we work with many cleantech clients on green technology breakthroughs and sustainable solutions. We are pleased to partner with companies and inventors who are addressing climate change and whose initiatives further the objectives set forth by COP28.

We eagerly await the results of the COP28 summit to see how they will influence the future of the green economy.

Data and commentary provided by Mathys & Squire has featured in an article by The Trademark Lawyer and Solicitors Journal, giving an insight into the issues that companies face amidst the recent surge in AI legal cases.

An extended version of the press release is available below.

The surge in new artificial intelligence (AI) legal cases to decide if infringements arise when copyrighted data is used to train AI systems, suggests that intellectual property law will struggle to keep pace with the speed of AI developments, says leading intellectual property law firm, Mathys & Squire.

Companies are increasingly concerned about both the risks of intellectual property infringements and confidentiality issues when using AI. Companies are even urging their advisors, such as law firms and professional services firms, not to input any of their information into AI systems such as large language models (LLMs) amid fears of data leaks.

Lack of clarity on AI related copyright breaches

Mathys & Squire says that, as with the growth of the internet, AI is going to see both the courts and legislation struggle to provide businesses clear direction on rapidly developing law relating to AI.

Clear infringements occur if generative AI systems are directly reproducing copyrighted information. However, it is unclear whether copyright infringements arise when the AI system producing them has been trained on this copyrighted information.

AI LLMs are fed massive amounts of data so that the model can automatically return results, which could be copyrighted material. This is creating confusion for owners of copyrighted material who want to protect their intellectual property rights.

Andrew White, Partner at Mathys & Squire says, “AI is creating a multitude of new challenges and questions in relation to intellectual property. Many legal cases are ongoing as individuals seek clarification on what their rights and responsibilities are. Companies with copyrighted material and AI companies themselves are in urgent need of clarification.”

Recent legal cases regarding AI copyright disputes include:

Some tech firms themselves have already taken action to provide clarity on the issue. Microsoft said it will take legal responsibility if customers get sued for copyright breaches while using its AI Copilot platform. Google has also reassured users of its AI tools on Cloud and Workspace platforms that it will defend them from copyright claims.

Companies fearful of AI data leaks

AI also presents serious potential confidentiality risks to companies. As data is stored in the cloud, data leaks can occur even if companies use their own private AI systems to safeguard against information being shared outside of their organisation.   

Italy had previously banned ChatGPT over data protection concerns in April 2023 before reversing its ban later that month. Apple has restricted its employees from using AI tools over fears that confidential data could be leaked to outside sources.

Adds Andrew White, “It is important to have safeguards in place to ensure that confidential information is not input into these AI systems. Given the enormous risks, companies have made formal requests to their professional advisors like law firms and management consultants not to enter any of their information into AI systems.”

High-profile examples show that the entering confidential information into AI can have serious consequences. These include: