Journal of World Intellectual Property最新文献

{"title":"Inventorship in the age of AI: Legal challenges and potential solutions","authors":"Özgür Arikan","doi":"10.1111/jwip.70014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70014","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 <i>Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents</i> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":54129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":"29 2","pages":"275-292"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148522824","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Gregorini v. Shyamalan: Can Access Trump Similarity in a Globalised Digital Age?","authors":"Anna Monnereau","doi":"10.1111/jwip.70012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70012","url":null,"abstract":"<p>On the 20th February 2025, the final judgement of <i>Gregorini v. Shyamalan</i> rejected director Gregorini's claims that the show ‘Servant’ produced by Apple TV+ copied her independent film ‘The Truth About Emanuel’. Infringement can be established by proving substantial similarity and access to the work. Although the official complaint appeared to evidence substantial similarity, it did not establish access. In rejecting infringement claims due to lack of demonstrated access, the ruling threatens the future protection of artistic and literary works. A strict application of the law reveals that the conditions for copyright infringement may be outdated in a digitalised and globalised age. Access can be immediate, universal and untraceable. This note examines the court's assessment of both similarity and access, concluding that the requirement of proof of access reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of copyright law and an outdated view of the entertainment industry.</p>","PeriodicalId":54129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":"29 2","pages":"293-300"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jwip.70012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148522896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Moral rights in copyright laws of GCC countries","authors":"Bashayer AlMajed,&nbsp;Bashar Malkawi","doi":"10.1111/jwip.70013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70013","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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<b><span>.</span></b></p>","PeriodicalId":54129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":"29 2","pages":"301-330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148522949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Intellectual property rights and environmental protection: A review of Tanzania's policy and legal framework","authors":"Saudin J. Mwakaje,&nbsp;Hamudi I. Majamba","doi":"10.1111/jwip.70010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70010","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":54129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":"29 2","pages":"233-256"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148534229","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Geographical indication landscape in India: Suggestions and way forward","authors":"Parveen Yadav","doi":"10.1111/jwip.70015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70015","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":54129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":"29 2","pages":"331-358"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148533605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Proposed changes in the standard material transfer agreement— Making it work as a contract, and future pitfalls","authors":"Morten Walløe Tvedt","doi":"10.1111/jwip.70008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70008","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In November 2025, the Governing Body of the Plant Treaty aims at agreeing to the measure to enhance the functionality of the Multilateral System for Plant Genetic Resources. Exchange of plant genetic resources is essential for progress in plant breeding. The negotiation of amendments to the current Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) stranded at its Governing Body 8 in Rome 2019, and the negotiation process was restarted by resolution 3/2022. Succeeding with the revision of the SMTA will be one of the politically important goals for the next Governing Body meeting. When the stake is political and high, there is a chance of compromising on the core details to make the system work as a tool of law. For the SMTA to oblige users of PGRFA to share benefits back to the global common through the Fund under the ITPGRFA, it is essential for the ITPGRFA to achieve its objectives. This article analyses the proposed changes in the SMTA as by July 2025 to assess whether it is likely to oblige users to contribute with user payments. It evaluates the “Subscription System” and the “Single Access System” respectively from contract law perspective to discuss the chance for increasing payments to the system. The methodology is to apply contract drafting literature to the proposals on the table and propose clarifications for a new SMTA. Only by being binding on the users, the SMTA can be expected to provide for user payments in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":54129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":"29 2","pages":"203-221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148533770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Influence and convergence to higher standards: The dual examination of pharmaceutical patents in Brazil","authors":"Eduardo Mercadante","doi":"10.1111/jwip.70018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70018","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":54129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":"29 2","pages":"381-401"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jwip.70018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148533173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Essentially derived varieties in the age of genome editing: Striking a balance between innovation and protection","authors":"Miguel A. Rapela","doi":"10.1111/jwip.70009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70009","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":54129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":"29 2","pages":"222-232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148533016","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Whose knowledge, whose cure? traditional medicine and the boundaries of WIPO's 2024 genetic resources treaty","authors":"Tolulope Anthony Adekola","doi":"10.1111/jwip.70016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70016","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":54129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":"29 2","pages":"359-380"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jwip.70016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148534223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How much human contribution is needed for “ownership” of AI-generated content: A comparison of copyright determination for generative AI in China and the United States","authors":"Ruihan Sun,&nbsp;Shuhuan Zhou","doi":"10.1111/jwip.70011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70011","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":54129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":"29 2","pages":"257-274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148534045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}