SWEDEN Law and Practice Contributed by: Helena Rönqvist, Magnus Jonson, Vilma Slättegård and Anna Karlsson, Magnusson Law
same applies to AI-generated material that has strik- ing similarities to a work protected by intellectual property rights. Using copyright-protected works as training data in an AI system therefore gives rise to a risk of infringement. In addition, the EU AI Act, which is directly applica- ble in Sweden, imposes specific obligations relevant to the use of protected works in AI training. Provid- ers of AI models are required to provide a sufficiently detailed summary of the content used for training, including content protected by copyright. Further- more, AI systems must be designed in a manner that provides sufficient safeguards against the generation of illegal content, which includes content that infringes intellectual property rights. 7.4 Enforcement Against AI-Enabled Infringement Swedish law does not contain any specific provisions addressing enforcement against AI-enabled infringe- ment. Instead, the general rules on intellectual prop- erty infringement apply, meaning that a rights-holder may pursue claims against any party that infringes its intellectual property rights through the use of genera- tive AI tools, relying on the same causes of action, procedural mechanisms, and remedies as would be available in respect of any other form of infringement. 8. Intersections and Overlaps 8.1 Choice of Protection and Strategic Considerations The choice between different forms of IP protection depends on the nature of the subject matter, the com- mercial objectives of the rights-holder, the anticipated duration of the competitive advantage, and the costs of obtaining and maintaining protection. Swedish law permits cumulative protection under multiple IP regimes where the relevant requirements are inde- pendently satisfied. Patent protection is generally preferred where the rights-holder intends to license the technology, or where enforcement against inde- pendent developers is important. However, a patent requires public disclosure, involves significant costs, and is limited in duration. Key factors influencing the choice include the ease of detecting the innovation
in a competitor’s product, the speed of technological development, regulatory disclosure requirements, and the enforceability of contractual confidentiality obliga- tions. Where subject matter qualifies for protection under multiple regimes, the rights-holder should con- sider the differing scope, duration, and enforcement mechanisms of each. 8.2 Cumulative and Overlapping Protection Cumulative and overlapping IP protection in Sweden allows for a single asset to be protected by multi- ple, independent IPRs simultaneously or sequential- ly. Swedish law, aligning with EU harmonisation and decisions from the CJEU, generally treats different IP rights as independent, meaning that the existence of one right does not prevent the acquisition of another. There are no statutory or judicial limits on claiming overlapping protection. A rights-holder who has overlapping protection, eg, design protection and copyright, can choose to claim infringement of one of the protections or both. The court will examine the question of infringement individually for each protection. Since all cases of infringement and validity of IP rights are dealt with by the same court, the Patent and Market Court, this is not a problem. 8.3 Patents and Trade Secrets Confidential know-how and technical information may be protected as a trade secret under the Swedish Trade Secrets Act before, during, and – in certain cir- cumstances – after a patent application, provided that the information is secret, that reasonable protective measures have been taken, and that its disclosure is likely to cause damage to the holder in a competitive context. Prior to the filing of a patent application, the invention will typically qualify as a trade secret. Dur- ing the application process, the information remains confidential until publication. Upon publication, the disclosed information enters the public domain and can no longer satisfy the secrecy requirement under the Trade Secrets Act. However, ancillary know-how not included in the patent specification – such as manufacturing parameters, optimisation data, and quality control procedures – may continue to qualify as trade secrets. Similarly, trade secret protection may survive the expiry or invalidation of a patent in
345 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook