All Rights Reserved: Protecting IP in the AI Era (UK Edition)

By: Ambur C. Smith, Esq.

In late March, I traveled to the UK with longstanding entertainment clients. While there, I made time to explore the latest developments in Intellectual Property (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance. As fate would have it, I was able to attend two conferences at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in Westminster, London, in one day; leaving with fascinating insights.

In the weeks since, the Trump Administration's AI & Crypto Czar, David Sacks, has predicted the exponential progress of AI tools in a relatively short period of time on his "All In" podcast. Needless to say, now more than ever, staying abreast to the evolution of AI governance and the intellectual property laws governing the inputs and outputs is essential for any responsible innovator, across industries.

Global IP ConfEx: AI and Patent Law

Hosted by Events 4 Sure & GeneralCounsel360 , the Global IP ConfEx brought together legal minds from private firms and global corporations. I was particularly drawn to the corporate roundtable, "Artificial Intelligence in Patent Law: Innovation, Safeguarding, Data Privacy, and Cybersecurity." Speakers Kritika Chhokra (Patent Intelligence Manager, BAT, UK), David Knight (Partner, Brown Rudnick LLP, UK), and Simon Persoff (Partner, DLA Piper, UK) discussed the risks and mitigation tools associated with AI.

Key Takeaways from Global IP ConfEx:

• Risks Posed by AI:

  • General risks include bias, discrimination, hallucination due to unreliable data, and data privacy concerns.

  • IP-specific risks involve potential infringement when using third-party data for AI training and open-source tools leading to "open disclosure"

• Mitigation Tools:

  • Transparency is crucial, echoing General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) guidelines.

  • Legal oversight of AI outputs is necessary for compliance and ethical operations.

  • Implementing a risk taxonomy, auditing Large Language Models, and training Natural Language Processing (NLP) are also important.

• Proposals:

  • Kritika Chhokra suggested creating a separate category for AI-generated inventions

  • The panel predicted international conventions for global AI standards; echoing and/or expaning upon US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) guidance issued in February 2024

Legal Business UK's AI Summit: Disputes and Regulations

Later that day, I attended Legal Business UK's AI Summit, which explored AI's impact on the legal and regulatory landscape. The "AI disputes – discussing recent cases and the takeaways for business" panel provided valuable insights as well; citing the influence of pending US cases on the approach to AI governance in the UK and elsewhere. Speakers included Katie Chandler (Head of Product Liability and Product Safety, Tayler Wessing), Xuyang Zhu (Partner, Technology, IP, an Information, Taylor Wessing), Will Scrimshaw (General Counsel, Benevolent AI), and Alexandra Gartrell (VP, head of Legal, EMEA, Cloudera).

Key Takeaways from Legal Business UK's AI Summit:

• AI Disputes: "Human in the loop" policies and organization-wide commitments to AI literacy are vital. AI disputes are diverse and require nuanced approaches. IP disputes, especially concerning training data and output liability, are prominent (See a breakdown of Getty Images v. Stability AI; a case likely be considered landmark UK precedent. Compare to US precedent creating more pathways for individual claimaints in copyright cases).

• Regulatory Regimes: Strict liability, negligence, and risk assessments across the supply chain are crucial. The Amended Product Liability Directive is significant. Product and IP spaces are leading in AI regulations.

• Regulatory Gaps and Risks: In-house attorneys must rely on other lawyers and consider steering committees. Clean data, compliance cycles, and monitoring the supply chain are essential.

• Practical Risk Mitigation Strategies: Inventorying AI use, reconsidering IP practices, developing a risk register, and providing organization-wide training are necessary. Large IP holders should inventory rights and seek leadership guidance on risk.

• Contractual Protections/Standards: Standard risk allocation clauses, due diligence during procurement, and data privacy champions are vital.

• AI Policies in Law Firms: Policies should be practice-area specific.

So what?

These conferences highlighted the complex interplay of IP and AI. It's clear that navigating this rapidly evolving landscape requires diligence, transparency, and strategic planning. The insights gained will undoubtedly shape how our firm approaches legal counsel and IP strategies for our clients in the days ahead.

Stay tuned for more in-depth explorations of these takeaways in future posts!

Need customized support monitoring AI regulations and their impact on you and your business?

BOOK A CONSULTATION