“[S]Many prominent figures say the proposed SEP framework could do more harm than good to technological competition at a time when both the US and EU are battling with foreign rival China for technological hegemony. IP critics have expressed serious concerns. ”
On April 27, two legal actions were launched within the European Union. This promises to have a major impact on the state of technical commercialization within Europe, both for standardized and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. EU political leaders argue that both proposals address consumer safety and competition concerns, but multiple commentators have argued that they will slow the speed of commercialization of the technology and threaten Europeans across the continent. It points out problems that could harm the
European Commission finally publishes SEP regulatory framework after criticism
After weeks of anticipation after the draft regulation was first leaked to the media, the European Commission has finally introduced a proposal for a new regulatory framework surrounding standard essential patents (SEPs). The framework will hand over many regulatory powers to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to intervene in commercial licensing disputes over telecommunications and other standardized technologies covered by SEPs. increase. These responsibilities are housed in the EUIPO’s newly established ‘Competence Center’, which maintains a register of SEPs, conducts so-called ‘essentiality checks’ of patents registered with the EUIPO as SEPs, manages non-discriminatory and non-discriminatory processes. (FRAND) A royalty rate determined by an agency on behalf of a lawsuit.
According to the EU Commission press release announcing the new SEP regulatory framework, “the current system has been plagued by a lack of transparency, predictability and length of controversy and litigation.” Some IP industry members have responded positively to the proposed rule, and the EUIPO’s FRAND decision procedure under the rule would require limited discovery and arbitration allowing for some expert testimony. I point out that it comes down to following the style process. In addition, the rule also allows the SEP owner to submit gross royalty proposals and other information to his EUIPO, subject to the EUIPO determining his FRAND rate across standardized technologies. Allow.
However, several prominent IP commentators have argued that the proposed SEP framework would do more harm than good to technology competition at a time when both the US and EU are battling with foreign rival China for technological supremacy. have expressed serious concern that An IPWatchdog editorial authored by Adam Mossoff, a law professor at GMU’s Antonin Scalia Law School, says the EUIPO, the EU’s main body for registering trademarks, will decide whether the claimed technology is essential to the standard. He pointed out that he lacked the necessary patent law expertise to do so. Gene Quinn, his CEO and president of IPWatchdog, was further pointed out in his criticism of the EU’s ambidextrous approach to SEP.
“The EC stands ready to debate the wisdom of multi-industry acquisitions that favor authoritarian legislation with meaningless FRAND (i.e. fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing promises. The European Union continues to move forward with an unfair policy because of the trade practices lawsuit against China at the World Trade Organization… Being deprived of ‘potential’… what, if anything, is the European Commission thinking? No, China, you have to stop what you are doing. Is it because we want to take over full and complete control of SEPs and, as a result, all standard-setting and related innovations more generally? It’s also special for ”
Along with the new regulatory framework for SEP licensing, the European Commission’s draft regulation will establish a compulsory licensing instrument for patents in response to the EU’s formal declaration of crisis in areas such as semiconductor supply shortages and the response to COVID-19. I also built a foundation. The regulation also creates a single Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) to harmonize national rules for patent term extension for human or veterinary medicines.
AI Law Provisions on Copyright Transparency May Lead to Infringement Lawsuits
On the same day that the SEP framework was officially unveiled, members of the European Parliament also voted to advance the AI law. This is a landmark legislative proposal that establishes strict regulations prohibiting various practices by technology companies implementing artificial intelligence platforms. Key provisions of the AI Act include strict testing and documentation rules for AI systems used in high-risk applications such as autonomous driving and medical devices, and new rules for AI systems in general, such as natural language processing platforms. There are regulations.
According to news reports, the AI law provisions related to generative AI models have undergone changes in the days leading up to the MEP vote to advance the law. used to train generative systems such as ChatGPT and other platforms that may generate media after being trained with copyrighted literary, art, or musical digital files; Includes language associated with copyrighted content. Efforts to ban the use of copyrighted material to train such AI systems have been unsuccessful, but the AI Act is designed to prevent operators of such platforms from being used to train AI systems. requires disclosure of copyrighted material.
The question of AI inventors and authors has become a major debate in the intellectual property community, but whether the use of copyrighted material to train AI systems constitutes infringement? or whether such activities could be covered under the traditional fair use doctrine. While technology companies such as ChatGPT operator OpenAI keep their training data secret, a new provision in the AI law opens the door to infringement lawsuits being brought by copyrighted content owners such as Getty Images. may expand.
Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 66396855
Author: Jolisvo
