Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 JANUARY 2024

What Rights Might Subsist In The AI Itself? How Can You Protect Those Rights?

Potter Clarkson LLP
Explore more from Potter Clarkson LLP

Businesses are increasingly recognising the value of Artificial Intelligence, meaning that pursuing IP rights for AI innovations is more important than ever.

United KingdomTechnology
Potter Clarkson LLP
Potter Clarkson LLP
Author LinkedIn connections

Businesses are increasingly recognising the value of Artificial Intelligence, meaning that pursuing IP rights for AI innovations is more important than ever. This article explores the rights available specifically for AI algorithms, in particular comparing the protection conferred by patents and trade secrets.

PATENTING

An AI algorithm may be patented. At the UK IPO, this group of inventions is "core AI", defined as not having a specific application but rather advancing the field of AI itself. However, there are still strict requirements to fulfil for this type of invention to be considered patentable subject matter. The UKIPO has specified1:

"...the effect must be something more than an effect derived by the invention being just a better algorithm or well-written program running on a conventional computer (which would fall solely within the computer program exclusion). The core AI must bring about a change to the technical operation of a conventional

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Be Nice To Claude: Anthropic's Acceptable Use Policy Updates

Anthropic's updated Acceptable Use Policy introduces significant changes for organisations building on Claude, extending far beyond the headline-grabbing prohibition on abusive behaviour towards the AI model. The policy now addresses deceptive campaigns, election interference, weapons development, surveillance systems, and requires human oversight for high-impact decisions affecting individuals' rights and wellbeing.
United KingdomTechnology
Marks & Clerk
Marks & Clerk
Article

The UK Cyber Security And Resilience Bill: What You Need To Know

The UK Government has introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill to address critical gaps in existing cyber security regulations, expanding coverage to data centres, managed service providers, and critical suppliers while granting regulators enhanced enforcement powers. With tightened incident reporting deadlines, turnover-based penalties up to £17 million, and mandatory supply chain resilience measures, organisations across essential services sectors must assess their readiness for compliance
United KingdomTechnology
Browne Jacobson LLP
Browne Jacobson LLP
Article

EHDS And The Future Of Health Data Transactions In Europe

The European Health Data Space (EHDS) regulation has entered into force, creating a harmonised framework for cross-border health data access across the EU. While Europe possesses exceptional health data resources—particularly in Nordic countries with comprehensive patient registries—it has historically lacked the commercial data market infrastructure seen in the United States. This analysis explores how life science companies and investors can position themselves to capitalise on emerging opport
European UnionFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Potter Clarkson LLP
Potter Clarkson LLP
Article

G 1/25: Description Amendments At The EPO - Business As Usual?

The Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued its decision in G 1/25, addressing a fundamental question in European patent practice: when must patent descriptions be amended to align with amended claims? This landmark ruling establishes new guidance on the relationship between claims and descriptions, building upon the interpretive framework set forth in G 1/24 and potentially reshaping how practitioners approach description amendments at the EPO.
AfghanistanIntellectual Property
Potter Clarkson LLP
Potter Clarkson LLP