Content from the following sources has been used in the creation of this casebook:

• CEIPI Advanced Training on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (2nd Edition, 2019) (Syllabus)

  Authors:

  • Giancarlo Frosio
  • 1: Course Plan and Presentations original
  • 1.1: AI & IP CEIPI Advanced Training Program original
  • 2: Module 1 - Introduction to AI: Technical Aspects and Regulatory Trends original
  • 2.1: European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, Statement on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Autonomous Systems (European Commission, 9 March 2018) original
  • 2.2: European Parliament Resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)) original
  • 2.3: Mirjana Stankovic, Ravi Gupta, Bertrand Rossert, Gordon Myers and Marco Nicoli, White Paper: Exploring Legal, Ethical and Policy Implications of Artificial Intelligence (Global Forum of Law, Justice and Development, World Bank, October 2017) original
  • 2.4: Yann Méniére, Ilja Rudyk, Javier Valdes (2017), Patents and the Fourth Industrial Revolution: The Inventions behind Digital Transformation, Munich, DE: European Patent Office original
  • 2.5: Burkhard Schafer, Editorial: The Future of IP Law in an Age of Artificial Intelligence, 13(3) SCRIPTed (2016) original
  • 2.6: Matthew Scherer, Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies, 29(2) Harvard J. of L. & Tech. 354 (2016) original
  • 2.7: Ryan Calo, Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw, 103(3) California L. Rev. 513-63 (2015) original
  • 2.8: David Vladeck, Machines without Principals: Liability Rules and Artificial Intelligence, 89(1) Washington L. Rev. 117-150 (2014) original
  • 3: Module 2 - AI and Copyright: Authorship original
  • 3.1: Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018) original
  • 3.2: Jane Ginsburg, People Not Machines: Authorship and What It Means in the Berne Convention, 49 IIC 131 (2018) original
  • 3.3: Russ Pearlman, Recognizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) as Authors and Inventors Under U.S. Intellectual Property Law, 24(2) Rich. J. L. & Tech. 1 (2018) original
  • 3.4: Ana Ramalho, Will Robots Rule the (Artistic) World? A Proposed Model for the Legal Status of Creations by Artificial Intelligence Systems​, 21 Journal of Internet Law 1 (2017) original
  • 3.5: James Grimmelmann, There is No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored Work And It is a Good Thing, Too, 39 Colum. J. L. & Arts. 403 (2016) original
  • 3.6: James Grimmelmann, Copyright for Literate Robots, 101 Iowa Law Review 657 (2016) original
  • 3.7: Bruce Boyden, Emergent Works, 39 Colum. J.L. & Arts 377 (2016) original
  • 3.8: Annemarie Bridy, Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author, 2012 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 5 (2012) original
  • 3.9: Jani McCutcheon, Vanishing Author in Computer-Generated Works: A Critical Analysis of Recent Australian Case Law, 36 Melbourne University Law Review 915 (2012) original
  • 3.10: Alan Durham, Copyright and Information Theory: Toward an Alternative Model of "Authorship", 2004 BYU L. Rev. 69 (2004) original
  • 3.11: Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Causing Copyright, 117 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (2017) original
  • 4: Module 3 - AI and Copyright: Ownership and Infringement original
  • 4.1: C-5/08, Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (16 July 2009) ECLI:EU:C:2009:465 original
  • 4.2: C-360/13, Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Other (5 June 2014) ECLI:EU:C:2014:1195 original
  • 4.3: Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018) original
  • 4.4: Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, Generating Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and Accountability in the 3A Era, The Human-Like Authors are Already Here: A New Model, 2017 Mich. St. L. Rev. 659 (2017) original
  • 4.5: Richard Eckart de Castilho, Giulia Dore, Thomas Margoni,Penny Labropoulou, Iryna Gurevych, A Legal Perspective on Training Models for Natural Language Processing, in Proceedings of the 11th LREC (ELRA, 2018) original
  • 4.6: Andres Guadamuz, Do Androids Dream of Electric Copyright? Comparative Analysis of Originality in Artificial Intelligence Generated Works, 2 Intellectual Property Quarterly 169 (2017) original
  • 4.7: Benjamin Sobel, Artificial Intelligence's Fair Use Crisis, 41 Colum. J. L. & Arts 45 (2017) original
  • 4.8: Jean-Marc Deltorn, Deep Creations: Intellectual Property and the Automata, 4(3) Frontiers in Digital Humanities (2017) original
  • 4.9: Kalin Hristov, Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma, 57(3) IDEA 431-454 (2017) original
  • 4.10: Robert Denicola, Ex Machina: Copyright Protection for Computer-Generated Works, 69 Rutgers University Law Review 251 (2016) original
  • 4.11: Annemarie Bridy, The Evolution of Authorship: Work Made by Code, 39 Colum. J.L. & Arts 395 (2016) original
  • 4.12: Jean-Marc Deltorn, La Protection des Donnes Personelles Face Aux Algorithmes Predictifs, 12 RDLF (2017) original
  • 4.13: Margot E. Kaminski, Authorship, Disrupted: AI Authors in Copyright and First Amendment Law, 51 UC Davis Law Review 589 (2017) original
  • 5: Module 4 - AI, Data and Big Data: Ownership and Protection original
  • 5.1: Ryan Calo, Peeping HALs: Making Sense of Artificial Intelligence and Privacy, 2(3) European Journal of Legal Studies 168-192 (2010) original
  • 5.2: Text and Data Mining original
  • 5.2.1: Christophe Geiger, Giancarlo Frosio, Oleksandr Bulayenko, The Exception for Text and Data Mining (TDM) in the proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Legal Aspect, In-Depth Analysis for the Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union, Policy Department Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament, PE 604.941 (February 2018) original
  • 5.2.2: Andres Guadamuz and Diane Cabell, Data Mining in UK Higher Education Institutions: Law and Policy, 4(1) Queen Mary Intellectual Property Review 3-29 (2014) original
  • 5.2.3: Maarteen Truyens, Patric Van Eecke, "Legal aspects of text mining", 30(2) Computer Law & Security Review 2182 (2014). original
  • 5.3: General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) original
  • 5.3.1: EU GDPR Portal original
  • 5.3.2: Is There A "Right To Explanation" for Machine Learning in the GDPR? original
  • 5.3.3: Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale, Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For, 16 Duke Law & Technology Review 18 (2017). original
  • 5.4: Michael Kearns, Data Intimacy, Machine Learning, and Consumer Privacy (Penn Law CTIC Research Paper, 2018) original
  • 6: Module 5 - Patenting AI original
  • 6.1: The European Patent Convention original
  • 6.2: Yann Meniere, Ilja Rudyk, Javier Valdes (2017), Patents and the Fourth Industrial Revolution: The Inventions behind Digital Transformation, Munich, DE: European Patent Office original
  • 6.3: Ben Hattenbach & Joshua Glucoft , Patents in an Era of Infinite Monkeys and Artificial Intelligence, 19 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 32 (2015) original
  • 6.4: Pamela Samuelson, Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works, 47 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1185 (1986) original
  • 7: Module 6 - AI-generated Inventions: Inventiveness and Ownership original
  • 7.1: Inventiveness and Ownership original
  • 7.1.1: Ana Ramalho, Patentability of AI-Generated Inventions: Is a Reform of the Patent System Needed? (February 15, 2018) original
  • 7.1.2: Peter Blok, The inventor's new tool: artificial intelligence - how does it fit in the European patent system? 39(2) European Intellectual Property Review 69-73 (2017) original
  • 7.1.3: Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid and Xiaoqiong Liu, When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: The 3A Era and an Alternative Model for Patent Law, Cardozo Law Review (forthcoming 2018) original
  • 7.1.4: Erica Fraser, Computers as Inventors дус Legal and Policy Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Patent Law, 13(3) Scripted (2016) original
  • 7.1.5: Russ Pearlman, Recognizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) as Authors and Inventors Under U.S. Intellectual Property Law, 24(2) Rich. J. L. & Tech. 1 (2018) original
  • 7.1.6: Ryan Abbott, I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law, 57 B.C. L. Rev. 1079 (2016) original
  • 7.1.7: Colin Davies, An evolutionary step in intellectual property rights дус Artificial intelligence and intellectual property, 27(6) Computer Law & Security Rev. 601-619 (2011) original
  • 7.2: Non-obviousness and Prior Art original
  • 7.2.1: Ryan Abbott, Everything is Obvious, 66 UCLA. L. Rev. 2 (2019) original
  • 7.2.2: Ben Hattenbach & Joshua Glucoft , Patents in an Era of Infinite Monkeys and Artificial Intelligence, 19 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 32 (2015) original
  • 7.2.3: All Prior Art Project original
  • 8: Module 7 - AI, Trade Secrets, and Medical Innovation original
  • 8.1: Directive (EU) 2016/943 of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure original
  • 8.3: Jacob Sherkow, The CRISPR Patent Landscape: Past, Present, and Future, The CRISPR Journal, February 2018 original
  • 8.4: W. Nicholson Price, "Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Applications and Legal Implications" 14(1) The SciTech Lawyer (2017) original
  • 8.5: Brenda Simon and Ted Sichelman, Data-generating patents, 111 Nw. U. L. Rev. 377 (2016) original
  • 8.6: Dan Burk, Patents as Data Aggregators in Personalized Medicine, 21(2) Boston U. J. of Science and Technology L. (2015) original
  • 9: Module 8 - Autonomous Driving original
  • 9.1: Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products original
  • 9.2: Directive (EU) 2016/943 of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure original
  • 9.3: Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety original
  • 9.4: European Parliament Resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)) original
  • 9.5: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.; Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking Ltd., Case 3:17-cv-00939 (23 February 2017) original
  • 9.6: Chloe Margulis and Charles Goulding, Waymo vs. Uber May Be the Next Edison vs. Westinghouse, 99 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 500 (2017) original
  • 9.7: Matthew Rimmer, Intellectual property and self-driving cars: Waymo vs Uber: Supplementary submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources' inquiry into the social issues relating to land-based driverless vehicles in Australia (2017) original
  • 9.8: Jacob Walpert, Carpooling Liability?: Applying Tort Law Principles to the Joint Emergence of Self-Driving Automobiles and Transportation Network Companies, 85(4) Fordham L. Rev 1863 (2017) original
  • 10: Module 9 - AI, DRM, Blockchain and Smart Contract original
  • 10.1: Birgit Clark, Blockchain and IP Law: A Match Made in Crypto Heaven?, WIPO Magazie, February 2018 original
  • 10.2: Smart contracts and intellectual property: challenges and reality original
  • 10.3: Andres Guadamuz and Chris Marsden, Blockchains and Bitcoin: Regulatory Responses to Cryptocurrencies, 20(12) First Monday (2015) original
  • 10.4: Trent McConaghy, How Blockchains Could Transform Artificial Intelligence, Dataconomy, 21 December 2016 original
  • 10.5: Muse Blockchain original
  • 10.6: Ujo: Empowering Music original
  • 11: Module 10 - AI, Decision Making and Enforcement original
  • 11.2: Xavier Seuba, The Global Regime for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (CUP 2017) original
  • 11.3: Xavier Seuba, "Intellectual property enforcement, from concept to practice, in Xavier Seuba, The Global Regime for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (CUP 2017) 11-34 original
  • 11.4: Yotaro Okazaki, Implications of Big Data for Customs - How It Can Support Risk Management Capabilities, WCO, 2017 original
  • 11.5: Philip Leith, The rise and fall of the legal expert system, 30(3) Int'l Review of Law, Computers & Technology 107-114 (2016) original
  • 11.6: Maayan Perel, Niva Elkin-Koren, Accountability in algorithmic copyright enforcement, 19 Stanford Technology Law Review 473-533 (2016) original
  • 11.7: Kate Crawford, Jason Schultz, J., Big Data and Due Process: Toward a Framework to Redress Predictive Privacy Harms, 55 Boston College of Law Review 93-128 (2014) original
  • 12: Module 11 - Automated Copyright and Trademark Enforcement Online original
  • 12.1: DMCA, Section 512 original
  • 12.1.1: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (512), Section 512 original
  • 12.2: e-Commerce Directive, Articles 12-15 original
  • 12.2.1: eCommerce Directive, Articles 12-15 original
  • 12.3: Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Final Text approved by Parliament and Council, Art. 17 original
  • 12.4: European Commission Communication on on Tackling Illegal Content Online - Towards an enhanced responsibility of online platforms, COM(2017)555 final (28 September 2017) original
  • 12.5: European Commission Communication, Towards a modern, more European copyright framework, 9 December 2015, COM(2015) 626 final original
  • 12.6: European Commission Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, COM(2016)288 final (25 May 2016) original
  • 12.7: Dan Burk, Algorithmic Fair Use, U. of Chicago L. Rev. (forthcoming 2018) original
  • 12.8: Joshua Kroll, Joanna Huey, Solon Barocas, Edward Felten, Joel Reidenberg, David G. Robinson, and Harlan Yu, Accountable Algorithms (2017) 165 U Pa L Rev 633 original
  • 12.9: World Intermediary Liability Map (WILMap) (a project designed and developed by Giancarlo Frosio) original
  • 12.10: Giancarlo Frosio, To Filter or Not to Filter? That Is the Question in EU Copyright Reform, 36(2) Cardozo Arts & Entert. Law J. 331 (2018) original
  • 12.11: Giancarlo Frosio, Why Keep a Dog and Bark Yourself? From Intermediary Liability to Responsibility, 25 Oxford Int'l J. Law & Inf. Tech. 1 (2017) original
  • 12.12: Giancarlo Frosio, Reforming Intermediary Liability in the Platform Economy: A European Digital Single Market Strategy, 112 Northwestern University Law Review 19 (2017) original
  • 12.13: Matthew Sag, дуЦInternet Safe Harbors and the Transformation of Copyright Lawду» 93 Notre Dame L Rev 1 (2017) original
  • 12.14: Aaron Rieke, Miranda Bogen, David Robinson, Public Scrutiny of Automated Decisions: Early Lessons and Emerging Methods (An Upturn and Omidyar Network Report, 2018) original
  • 12.15: Dan Burk and Julie Cohen, Fair Use Infrastructure for Copyright Management Systems, Georgetown Public Law Research Paper 239731/2000 (2000) original