Abstract Registries of Indigenous knowledge and centralised Indigenous authorities to oversee these have been advanced as mechanisms to prevent the misappropriation of Indigenous knowledge within Western intellectual property (IP) systems. This article critically examines the potential and limitations of such registries and centralised authorities in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). Drawing on semi‐structured interviews with 12 Māori creators and intermediaries working within the NZ innovation ecosystem, the article explores Māori perspectives on the benefits, risks, and implications of establishing a registry of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) and a centralised authority to govern it. While participants identified possible advantages—including evidentiary functions, support for commercialisation, educational value for third parties, and improved recognition within Western regulatory and IP systems—none viewed registries or centralised authorities as unproblematic. Several participants raised concerns that registries and centralisation are Western constructs that are ill‐suited to reflecting either key Māori values and relationships to knowledge, particularly whakapapa (genealogy) and hononga (relationships), or te ao Māori (the Māori worldview). The perception of risks relating to loss of control, commodification, governance, and access—especially in the context of digital technologies and artificial intelligence—was prominent. The article concludes that, although registries may enhance the operation of Western IP systems, they risk undermining Māori knowledge systems and self‐determination unless they are fundamentally reimagined to transcend colonial logics.
Abstract This article provides an overview of the patent landscape in relation to PGRFA‐based inventions involving naturally occurring (“native”) traits and related Digital Sequence Information/Genetic Sequence Data (DSI/GSD). In particular, it focuses on the potential of patent claims to limit others' uses of PGRFA and related DSI/GSD on which the protected invention is based and/or other PGRFA in which equivalent traits and homologous DSI features are naturally present. We identified a core set of 399 patent documents (first filings)—representing a relatively small percentage of the overall global patent activity as captured through the most relevant PGRFA indicators—that have the potential to limit the use of the PGRFA materials from which these inventions were derived in further research and breeding. Based on the analysis of the claims in these patent families, we also identified 12 types of claims that have medium to high potential to affect the relevant restrictions. However, we were unable to assess the extent to which materials, whose access is facilitated under the framework of the FAO International Treaty on PGRFA, were used in the development of these patented inventions. This is because the current features of the database architecture of the international patent system neither require nor make this data available in a searchable and transparent manner for inventions that incorporate, or are based on, PGRFA obtained from the Plant Treaty's Multilateral System (MLS). Therefore, we propose some options that could be considered in order to address the issues raised in this study, including means to ensure “findable” disclosures of MLS materials upon which patented inventions are based, as well as the further analysis and the development of guidelines, under the auspices of the Plant Treaty, to address the relationship between different types of patent claims and the provisions of Treaty Article 12.3(d), which states that: “Recipients shall not claim any intellectual property or other rights that limit the facilitated access to the plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, or their genetic parts or components, in the form received from the Multilateral System.”
Abstract While global frameworks like the Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) encourage trade secret protection, India's historical resistance to classifying them as intellectual property has created a fragmented system reliant on outdated common law principles. This article critiques India's newly proposed Protection of Trade Secrets Bill, 2024 (“Bill”) as a potential turning point, juxtaposing its promises against persistent ambiguities in defining trade secrets, inconsistent judicial remedies, and the rise of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) driven challenges. Through empirical analysis of Right to Information (“RTI”) cases, we expose how trade secret claims are weaponized to withhold public interest data, from facial recognition technologies to pharmaceutical pricing, raising urgent questions about accountability in the digital age. By dissecting legal theories, global precedents, and India's legislative pivot, this article argues for a recalibrated balance: one that safeguards innovation without stifling transparency, proposing a novel Trade Secrets Registry as a blueprint for harmonizing secrecy with public interest. While AI serves as a key context, the article's broader aim is to develop a principled framework for trade secret and confidential information in India.
Intellectual Property (IP) is emerging as an important asset, contributing to innovation, economic growth and global trade. The global economy has also digitalized at an unprecedented rate, transforming the methods of IP creation, its management and trade. This transaction brings forth complex taxation challenges related to IP transactions. This paper explores the intersection of IP and taxation, emphasising the challenges and opportunities in cross-border IP transactions. It seeks to analyse the key taxation issues related to IP in the context of international trade, including transfer pricing, direct tax implications, and global tax reforms aimed at addressing harmful tax practices. Further, in examining the major "Base Erosion and Profit Shifting" (BEPS) risks in direct taxation, the paper delves into preferential tax regimes, transfer pricing risks, and artificial internal trading of intangibles. The OECD and G20's BEPS Action 5 project on harmful tax practices and their implementation in India are also critically analysed. This helps in examining how these global frameworks are addressing the tax challenges posed by IP. Finally, the paper examines key aspects of IP taxation in India, discussing relevant domestic frameworks and international agreements that shape India's approach to tax IP. Issues such as licensing, royalties, transfer pricing policies, and GST implications for IP transactions are explored. By addressing these key areas, the paper highlights the need for effective tax policies that align with the realities of the digital economy and international trade.
This article examines how songwriters in the United States object to the unwanted performance of their musical works at live political events, and the legal options available to challenge such uses. Prompted by the repeated use of 'Hold On, I'm Comin'' as outro music at Donald Trump's campaign events between 2020 and 2024, and the recent litigation brought by the family of co-writer Isaac Hayes, the article explores the limits of three legal approaches commonly relied upon in these disputes between songwriters and political users of music: copyright claims based on the public performance right, false endorsement claims under the Lanham Act, and state-based right of publicity claims. The analysis considers how music industry practices shape copyright ownership, how blanket licensing systems administered by performing rights organisations restrict objections to political uses, and how revocation clauses are a limited tool for preventing future performances. It also shows that Lanham Act and publicity-rights claims succeed only in narrow circumstances. The article concludes that while copyright law can sometimes offer control over political uses of music, alternative legal doctrines rarely make up for weak copyright claims, leaving ongoing gaps in the ability of songwriters to resist politically objectionable uses of their work.
Bangladesh is expected to graduate from the least developed country (LDC) category and become classified as a developing country in the later part of 2026. This transition will make Bangladesh ineligible for the waiver in relation to the pharmaceutical patents under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Consequently, it will have to provide both product and process patents for the pharmaceutical products, potentially hindering the accessibility of medicines for the public as well as the growth of the pharmaceutical industry, which has immensely benefitted from a patent-free regime. In preparation for the expected graduation, Bangladesh has recently changed its patent law, making it compatible with the TRIPS provisions. In drafting the law, Bangladesh has borrowed from Indian patent law and incorporated the flexibilities provided under TRIPS. However, institutional capacity of the Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (DPDT), industrial readiness and active pharmaceutical ingredients production of the pharmaceutical sector are critical in effectively leveraging the flexibility provisions. This article critically examines the post-LDC legal landscape for pharmaceutical patents in Bangladesh, exploring both domestic and international challenges in the implementation of the TRIPS flexibilities. It argues that while Bangladesh has introduced the flexibility provisions in the widest possible way, the pharmaceutical sector must invest in research and develop and expand its business into foreign markets. Finally, drawing on the experience of India, the article offers some strategic recommendations for the pharmaceutical industry in Bangladesh to effectively navigate the post-LDC scenario and make it thrive in the global competitive market.
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) reconfigures the foundations of copyright by introducing multi-actor creation and platform-mediated dissemination. Within a dual-dimensional framework combining the expressive function of originality and the disseminative function of platform power, four scenarios are developed to calibrate incentive structures and institutional efficiency. Comparative analysis of US, EU, and China's judicial practices reveals divergent yet complementary approaches: US courts emphasize market substitution and fair use's fourth factor; the EU advances restriction-based remuneration and extended collective licensing; and Chinese courts adopt a human-centered authorship model that recognizes verifiable expressive contribution. Law-and-economics reasoning supports replacing exclusivity with incentive-compatible tools-combining remuneration rights, collective management, and transparency obligations. Authorship is substantiated through process-evidence chains, while platforms assume proportional compliance duties aligned with their market power. By integrating comparative jurisprudence into this expressive-disseminative framework, copyright governance can evolve from static ownership allocation toward dynamic incentive regulation, achieving balanced innovation, equitable distribution, and long-term cultural sustainability.
This article delineates a comprehensive framework for the achievement of effective metaverse governance that reflects the EU's current metaverse agenda and promotes respect for intellectual property rights. To do so, this article follows a two-strand methodology. It engages in a doctrinal legal analysis and a policy-oriented assessment. It comprises four substantive sections. First, the article highlights the risks for copyright and trade mark infringements in the metaverse context under the EU legislative framework, taking into consideration landmark case law from the CJEU. The narrative moves to the enforcement of copyright and trade marks in metaverse gaming platforms; assessing the extent to which the enforcement aligns with the EU Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles (EU Declaration) and the broader EU Commission's Strategy for virtual words (EU Strategy). In particular, the article undertakes a focused analysis of the Terms of Service (ToS) of four prominent metaverse gaming platforms-Roblox, Fortnite, Minecraft, Sandbox-at face value on their stated terms and observes an overall satisfactory degree of compliance with several EU objectives, and arguably a higher degree of compliance when it comes to the protection of IP rights compared to other objectives, though with some room for greater alignment with the EU's agenda.Following the case study insights, the article turns to the widely used remedy of blocking injunctions. The issuing of blocking injunctions directly hinders users' right to access the metaverse and might encroach upon the fundamental right of freedom of expression and information of metaverse users and therefore, a limited degree of compatibility with the EU's metaverse agenda objectives has been observed. Finally, the authors put forward two core recommendations that constitute a targeted approach which could result in more effective IP enforcement within metaverse gaming platforms and other metaverse platforms which function in a similar fashion, that is, which enable online user interactions in real time and may serve as social hubs for the public. The first is a legal reform proposal to amend Article 3 of the IP Enforcement Directive to include an additional sub-section entailing key principles of the EU Commission's metaverse policy when it comes to metaverse gaming providers. The second is a techno-legal recommendation for the use of AI enforcement tools within metaverse gaming platforms with the aim of safeguarding IP rights whilst at the same time achieving a higher degree of alignment aligned with key EU strategic goals for the metaverse context.
This article examines Colombia's 2024 compulsory license for Dolutegravir, an HIV medication. The objective is to underscore how patent assetization informed the legal argumentation contesting the compulsory license. To this end, the article connects the dots between the characterization of patents as assets, discussions on patent valuation, and the legal debate over Dolutegravir's economic value in determining compensation for its authorized use. The research method combines documentary and theoretical analysis within the framework of Law and Political Economy. The article demonstrates that dominant practices and discourses in financialized capitalism, such as discounting, enable the construction of legal arguments for valuing patented medicines based on the revenue streams they can generate. This, in turn, makes compulsory licensing dependent on viewing patented medicines as revenue-producing property, meaning that proper compensation for any authorized use must meet patent holders' commercial expectations. Accordingly, the right to health in cases of compulsory licensing is subordinated to the perpetuation of the appropriation of value as rent.
As the European Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRED) marked the twentieth anniversary of its adoption, renewed calls have emerged for its revision, aimed at fostering a more effective application of the principle of proportionality in patent enforcement. Proponents of reform argue that injunctive relief continues to be granted in an overly automatic manner and should therefore be subject to greater restraint. To this end, it has been suggested that valuable guidance may be drawn from the US legal landscape and, in particular, from the framework articulated by the US Supreme Court in eBay v. MercExchange. Against this background, the paper critically examines these reform proposals, arguing that they appear to rest on the same arguments that underpinned the highly controversial regulatory proposal on standard essential patents (SEPs), and questioning the purported alignment between the European and the US approaches to patent enforcement.
While the requirement of substantial participation in the inventive process reflects a subjective standard of inventorship, patentability criteria remain objective. As a result, although patent protection presupposes sufficient human participation, which is especially important for AI outputs, there is no mechanism to assess such participation, since patentability criteria focus on the output itself irrespective of the inventive process. However, the current study argues that there is no insurmountable gap between the subjective standard of inventorship and the objective inventive step criterion, as compliance with the inventive step requirement also evidences sufficient human participation. To illustrate this, the study examines how the level of human contribution required for inventorship can be reflected through the inventive step criterion. The article discusses the evaluation of the inventive step and argues that a person skilled in the art must be considered 'AI-equipped'. It then illustrates how subjective participation in different stages of the inventive process corresponds to the objective assessment of outputs. The study concludes that if an output is obvious to an 'AI-equipped' person skilled in the art, no substantial contribution sufficient for inventorship was made; conversely, if it is non-obvious, the required substantial contribution was made during one or more stages of the inventive process.
Intellectual property (IP) is a loose cluster of rights. Every IP possesses unique characteristics. The same is true for Geographical Indication (GI). GI encompasses goods associated with the respective territory that have gained a reputation over the period of time. Because of this reputation, corresponding goods have captured the market. Therefore, from an economic perspective, GI protection becomes necessary. GI is not an individual right but a cumulative or community right. The local people typically produce the goods. These local people are involved in manufacturing, production, sale, and so on. This makes GI a model for regional growth, providing economic and growth opportunities to the local people. GI also stands in contrast to traditional knowledge (TK). Though limited, this contrast carries its own significance. It plays a significant role in preserving TK and enhancing its economic potential. The academic discourse reveals that GI may have more potential than initially thought. A robust and effective GI regime can extract the potential. The GI landscape in India indicates that significant planning is necessary to get the most out of it. The paper discusses the GI regime in India, contrasting it with the GI regime in the European Union (EU). The paper suggests means and measures that may be beneficial for establishing a robust GI regime in India. The paper also makes other important points, like the "advantages of GI," "the association of GI with TK," and "perceiving the GI landscape." The theme of the paper inherently postulates this articulation and the arguments it advances, as and when applicable.
Traditional medicine-including complementary, integrative, Indigenous, and ancestral practices-remains a vital source of healthcare for billions worldwide, particularly in the Global South. Despite its widespread use and biomedical relevance, traditional medicinal knowledge has long been excluded from dominant intellectual property systems shaped by Western legal traditions. This exclusion has enabled persistent biopiracy and inequitable commercialization of community-held knowledge. The 2024 WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge marks a historic attempt to address these imbalances. It introduces mandatory disclosure of origin in patent applications and reaffirms the role of the intellectual property system in promoting innovation, knowledge transfer, and economic development-to the mutual benefit of providers and users of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. However, the treaty's effectiveness remains uncertain due to its narrow scope, vague provisions, and reliance on national implementation. While analyses of the WIPO Treaty have largely focused on its disclosure requirements, legal enforceability, and implications for patent systems, relatively little attention has been paid to the treaty's implications for traditional medicines. Yet, traditional medicines represent one of the most significant areas where genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge intersect in practice. This paper critically evaluates the treaty's potential and limitations as applied to traditional medicine and advocates for a more justice-oriented, health-aligned IP framework-one that centres Indigenous values, ensures equitable governance, and protects traditional medicine.
Between 2001 and 2021, pharmaceutical patent applications filed in Brazil were examined by the patent office (INPI) and the national health regulator (Anvisa). This paper investigates how health regulators can contribute to patent examination by shifting the set of criteria cited as grounds for 2589 negative decisions from both entities. Initially, the INPI focused on the traditional criteria of novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability, while Anvisa adopted a more diverse approach and cited invention description most often. Over time, the entities converged to higher citation rates, with more criteria being considered relevant, indicating greater examination rigour. The most significant shift was the INPI's decisions becoming closer to Anvisa's than to its own previous decisions, and this paper provides concrete evidence of Anvisa influencing changes in the INPI's guidelines. Once Anvisa's main contribution became non-binding opinions, this policy's stability and enforcement were strengthened, and having both entities became almost symbiotic or mutually nutritious. Still, the lack of clarity about shared responsibilities and the intense debate that ensued have made implementing this multi-entity policy even more complex. Thus, this paper provides lessons about the dual examination system and similar policies as flexibilities within the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.
Unauthorised deepfakes are deeply problematic, from the spreading of misinformation to non-consensual pornographic content. This paper asks whether deepfakes, digital replicas and human digital twins justify personality rights. To address this question, it examines the harms that deepfakes can cause through disinformation, demeaning content and displacing creative workers. It demonstrates that the current UK legal patchwork of passing off, intellectual property, defamation, and criminal laws do not adequately address these harms. Therefore, it proposes the introduction of personality rights into UK law, in the form of an automatic unwaivable personality right for 70 years after the death of the person, with appropriate exceptions to protect freedom of expression. Deepfakes are the hinges on which to open the door of personality rights in the UK, for protection against the harms of unauthorised digital replicas.
In copyright law, moral rights of authorship are distinct from economic rights in economic works, breaking down into four basic rights, those of attribution, integrity, disclosure and withdrawal. Whilst economic rights are transferable, moral rights are not. The article explores current and historical moral rights in the GCC region, specifically UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, comparing the Sharia and civil code of these nations, to English and American Common Law and European Civil codes, addressing how culture and history has impacted the need or style of protection of moral rights. The article recommends reforms to GCC codes to permit stronger enforcement and pre-empt future demand for copyright protections from international investors, considering the economic changes and the rise of AI used in creative works.
The increasing integration of AI into the inventive process has raised significant legal challenges, particularly concerning inventorship and the right to apply for patents. The UK Supreme Court's judgement in Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents reaffirmed the human-centric approach to inventorship under the Patents Act 1977, emphasising that only natural persons can be named inventors. However, the increasing autonomy of AI systems challenges the conventional paradigm regarding inventorship. This article first analyses whether inventorship remains legally sufficient in the context of existing AI systems. The analysis then extends to the potential emergence of AGI, assessing its anticipated impact on inventorship. By exploring whether AGI capabilities could challenge the traditional requirement of a human inventor, this article considers the need for legal adaptation to achieve a balanced approach that reflects technological advancements while maintaining legal certainty. Additionally, this article examines the transfer of rights in AI-generated inventions, evaluating whether AI should continue to be classified strictly as property owned by its owner, with rights transferred under the doctrine of accession, or whether it should be granted a form of legal personhood with limited rights, including inventorship and patent ownership. To provide a novel perspective, this article introduces the argument that a dual legal status could be conceptualised for future AI systems. By addressing these emerging legal challenges, this study contributes to the ongoing debate on whether and how patent law should be reformed to accommodate AI's growing role in the inventive process.
This article examines how policy and regulatory approaches to environmental protection in Tanzania integrate intellectual property rights (IPR) perspectives as a key intervention. It focuses on patents as a subset of IPR and one of the key drivers of green innovation, while other types of IPR are discussed peripherally. The concern emanates from the ubiquity of IPR and its centrality in shaping policy and regulatory reforms in diverse fields, including environmental protection. The debate on the interface between patents, as a subset of IPR, and environmental protection is steadily gaining momentum globally, partly because environmental protection issues are central to fostering the sustainable development agenda. Consequently, several regulatory measures have been implemented, including a focus on the use of environmentally friendly technologies to mitigate the impact of intrusive human activities on the environment. Although Tanzania's national environmental policy and legal framework support the use of various scientific and technological tools to mitigate the harm caused by human activity to the environment, there is no explicit mention of patents as one of the strategic drivers. The patent system is structured to, among other things, advance and safeguard scientific and technological advancements. Thus, its inclusion and integration into Tanzania's national environmental protection measures could be a valuable addition. The review employs an exploratory and rights discourse approach in analysing the regulatory gaps and potential setbacks. The article highlights a lack of regulatory nexus between patent protection and environmental conservation measures, as evident in Tanzania's current environmental policies and laws. Thus, the article advocates for the explicit integration of patent protection as one of the interventions in environmental protection measures, promoting institutional coordination between the national IPR office and the authority responsible for environmental protection to achieve effective and sustainable environmental protection.
The development of generative AI has significantly impacted the copyright field, particularly in determining the copyright status of AI-generated content. This paper compares China and the United States (U.S.) by analyzing key cases relevant to this issue. In these cases, Chinese courts affirmed copyright ownership for AI users, whereas the U.S. Copyright Office declined to register such claims. The core divergence between the two countries lies in how they assess the degree of human contribution in the AI generation process. This difference stems from their distinct understandings of the role of AI and ultimately shapes the resulting outcomes. These differences may arise from varying AI-industry needs and legal traditions, influencing human creativity, the growth of the AI industry, and the balance of international copyright. From a comparative-law perspective, this study introduces and develops a human-AI collaborative authorship model to help bridge the doctrinal divide exemplified by China and the United States. This approach aims to explore new pathways in both scholarship and practice, thereby contributing to the establishment of a unified international copyright convention.
The concept of Essentially Derived Varieties (EDV) presents a critical challenge in plant variety protection, requiring a delicate balance between the Breeder's Exception (BE) and the rights of both initial variety developers and subsequent breeders who introduce genuine innovation. A balanced approach requires a transparent, flexible and science-based framework that considers genetic, phenotypic, and economic distinctiveness while mitigating risks, both those that may slow breeding progress and those that may compromise breeder rights. It is in this context that the UPOV explanatory note on EDV (EXP 2023) constitutes a potential further risk since all mono-parental varieties are classified as essentially derived and so the adoption of genome editing, and other new breeding technologies, would be restrictive. This risk would impede agricultural innovation and sustainability. The diverse proposals examined herein highlight different aspects-some emphasize economic and phenotypic mechanisms of differentiation while others call for a more organized and enforceable framework consistent with the pace of technological development. A significant issue relates to how we accurately define the so-called essential characteristics in scientific terms while ensuring that these remain flexible enough in the face of dynamic agricultural conditions and market demands. This calls for a classification system that is specific enough to hold threshold, counter-party and new technology accountable, but is flexible on the margins to address concerns with threshold clarity, perverse incentives, and technological disruptions. The suggested enhancements are either adjustment to existing criteria (Smith, Lawson, Kock, Van Lookeren et al. and Bostyn.) to the redefinition of the basic terms of plant variety protection (Rapela). In conclusion, a practical EDV framework must have a scientific basis in the genetics and physiology of the plant varieties involved while also possessing a sound legal footing to ensure that varietal protection mechanisms are proportionate and promote innovation, sustainability, and industry development in an ever-changing genetic and phenotypic environment. Based on these premises, the paper introduces a new functional-dependence model to clarify EDV status in modern breeding scenarios.
