Abstract This article analyses the recent conclusion of the Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement and its significance for the future of geographical indications protection in Australia and the European Union. It examines how the Agreement may shape the development and harmonisation of intellectual property frameworks, particularly in relation to geographical indications regimes. It evaluates the implications of the Agreement for future intellectual policy, regulatory cooperation, and geographical indications protection strategies across both jurisdictions.
center dot In Getty Images v Stability AI, the High Court delivered the first English judgment considering generative artificial intelligence (AI) and IP law. Anticipated as a landmark decision, the final arguments advanced were narrower than many expected. center dot This article provides an account of the factual background and procedural history, including a digestible explanation of diffusion-based image generation models and their training processes. It lays out the rulings on trade mark infringement and passing off briefly, and then proceeds to discuss in more depth the matter of secondary copyright infringement. The article argues that, while Smith J was correct in holding that an 'article' for the purposes of secondary infringement may include intangible objects such as AI models, the judgment contains a serious error in its interpretation of the term 'infringing copy'. center dot In particular, it is contended that the court wrongly required such an article to consist of or contain a copy of the protected work, contrary to both statutory language and case law. The article concludes by considering the implications of this reasoning for the forthcoming appeal and the broader regulation of generative AI in the UK.
Abstract Two years into the operation of the Unified Patent Court, Amgen v Sanofi/Regeneron is, alongside Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, the first decision on the merits from the Court of Appeal that tackles the inventive step and sufficiency requirements. This landmark decision might shape European patent litigation before the Unified Patent Court for years to come, particularly in the field of antibody drugs. We critically assess potential differences between the criteria applied by the European Patent Office, the Unified Patent Court and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Abstract On 22 August 2025, the Intellectual Property Division of the Supreme People’s Court of China ruled for the first time that core algorithm elements for AI deep learning, such as training code and databases, qualify as trade secrets due to their secrecy, commercial value and confidentiality. The court found that the appellees had failed to prove independent development of the allegedly infringing technology and lacked sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of secrecy, thereby infringing the appellant’s trade secret rights.
In a landmark decision, the Federal Court of Australia has clarified the meaning of 'principal director', held that moral rights cannot be subject to general contractual waiver, and found that inaccurate credit in film promotion contravened the Australian Consumer Law.
center dot The rapid development of generative artificial intelligence (AI) poses significant challenges to copyright law, particularly regarding AI-generated outputs. Unlike deterministic systems, generative AI employs advanced machine learning models to autonomously produce text, images, music and multimodal content, often in unpredictable and highly creative ways. These developments raise pressing questions within the harmonized European Union (EU) copyright framework, which is grounded in the concept of originality as the 'author's own intellectual creation'. center dot The article focuses on the copyrightability of AI-generated outputs and the extent of human contribution required for protection. It critically examines prompt engineering and its relationship to the idea-expression dichotomy, questioning whether prompts reflect sufficient 'free and creative choices' to qualify for authorship. The analysis also considers collaborative models between humans and AI, exploring how rights might be allocated among users, programmers and other actors. Ultimately, the article argues that any future reform must remain anchored in copyright's human-centred foundations while addressing the growing economic and cultural value of AI-generated works. center dot Overall, the article provides a fresh perspective on the legal complexities posed by generative AI, focusing on its output. It analyses the implications for copyright, while seeking to balance the system's foundational principles with AI's transformative potential.
Monitoring and compliance obligations relating to genetic resources (GRs) and associated traditional knowledge (TK) under Articles 15-17 of the Nagoya Protocol constitute one of the key responsibilities imposed on member countries to enable access and benefit-sharing. These provisions require members to track the utilization of GRs and TK within their jurisdiction, including the type of utilization and the country of origin, and to make such information available to the provider country to ensure transparency and accountability. Despite these obligations, only 49 of the 141 member countries have designated checkpoints, with 92 not yet compliant. Among those that have established checkpoints, most systems remain fragmented, failing to cover all forms of utilization or to provide the full range of information necessary for effective monitoring. A significant bureaucratic bottleneck lies in the perception that checkpoint mechanisms may overburden patent applicants, IP offices and market regulators, increasing transaction costs and potentially stifling research and development in innovation-driven sectors. This article advances the argument that monitoring and compliance under the Nagoya Protocol can be strengthened without imposing disproportionate regulatory burdens. It proposes an innovative governance model that demonstrates how information on the utilization of GRs and TK can be systematically collected, verified and made accessible to provider countries. Using India as a case study, the article illustrates how this model can be implemented within India's legal and institutional landscape, while offering a scalable framework for jurisdictions with similar regulatory environments.
The Benelux design law concept of tangwerking-translated in English as 'pincer effect'-suggests that a defendant can 'squeeze' the claimant, either arguing non-infringement (by claiming that differences between the claimed design and the accused product are more than minor) or-also-lack of validity (submitting that these differences are minor but differences between the prior art and the claimed design are 'equally' minor). However, under modern EU design law, there is no simultaneous tripartite comparison of prior art, claimed design and accused object as suggested by the concept of 'pincer effect'. Rather, the test for validity and for infringement are separate from each other, although both are assessed by the concept of the 'degree of freedom of the designer', which is exactly where reciprocity is to be found.
Abstract This recent order by a German labour court is both puzzling and instructive, as it contrasts the different approaches of civil and labour courts to trade secret cases and provides helpful guidance on measures that rights holders should take to safeguard confidentiality.
The morality provisions of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and the European Union (EU) Biotechnology (Biotech) Directive govern the patentability of biotech inventions across 39 EPC (40 from 1 June 2026, when Moldova accedes) and 27 EU member states. Human dignity, invoked in the recitals of the Directive and transposed into the EPC's Implementing Regulations, underpins these provisions. Yet the concept lacks any coherent articulation in patent law. Scholars have raised significant concerns about dignity adjudication in biotech patent law. This article identifies at least seven distinct legal regimes on the continent of Europe through which biotech patent cases raising dignity questions could arise, mapping the structural incoherence between them. These regimes result from overlapping memberships in the EPC, EU, Council of Europe and Unified Patent Court (UPC) systems, and include states that would adjudicate biotech patent cases entirely under their own national laws, without recourse to any supranational framework. The constitutional asymmetry is acute: the EU must ground dignity in a constitutional fundamental rights framework; the EPC framework has no equivalent. While the UPC, approaching its third anniversary, has not yet had a biotech case raising dignity concerns, it is bound by EU law, including the EU Charter and Court of Justice of the EU jurisprudence. This article argues for explanatory legal reasoning on the concept of dignity for patent law purposes-reasoning that articulates its grounds and requirements, enabling all stakeholders to understand which inventions do and do not violate dignity as biotechnology progresses. Emerging biotechnologies-including clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) germline editing and synthetic embryos-are already reaching patent offices, with potentially irreversible ramifications.
