UKRAINE Law and Practice Contributed by: Yaroslav Ognevyuk, AMBASSADORS
tions, damages, and, in certain cases, disclosure of information relating to the use of datasets and model development processes. This may require AI develop- ers to disclose data sources and training logic, rais- ing broader questions around AI regulation in Ukraine and data protection compliance. This pressure point is expected to become central in future AI-related disputes. The absence of clear regulatory guidance increases both legal uncertainty and enforcement risk. Risk management focuses on dataset curation, doc- umentation of data sources, and contractual safe- guards governing data use. This may trigger claims from both rights holders and contractual counterpar- ties, including data providers. 7.4 Enforcement Against AI-Enabled Infringement Ukrainian law does not provide a separate framework for AI-enabled infringement. Claims are pursued under existing copyright, trade mark, patent, or trade secret regimes, depending on the nature of the violation. The main challenge lies in evidence and causation. Courts require claimants to establish a clear link between the protected material and the output or conduct in question. Where AI systems are involved, this requires disentangling the role of training data, user input, and system behaviour, often supported by technical analysis and a detailed explanation of how outputs were generated. No established doctrine of secondary liability is spe- cifically tailored to AI tools or platforms. Liability may nevertheless arise where a platform exercises control over content, contributes to infringement, or fails to act after receiving notice. Enforcement is fact-driven and technically demand- ing. 8. Intersections and Overlaps 8.1 Choice of Protection and Strategic Considerations Ukrainian law allows the same subject matter to be protected under different IP regimes, making the
choice of protection a strategic rather than purely legal decision. The key distinction lies between patent protection and trade secret protection. Patents confer exclusivity but require disclosure. Trade secrets preserve confiden- tiality but offer no protection once the information becomes public or is independently developed. The choice depends on the nature of the technol- ogy and the business model. Where a solution can be readily reverse-engineered from a product, patent protection is typically preferred. Where value resides in processes, algorithms, or internal systems not exposed to the public, trade secret protection is often more effective. Time and market dynamics are also relevant. Patent protection requires time and investment, while trade secrets can be implemented immediately but demand continuous control. In fast-moving sectors, including software and defence-related technologies, maintain- ing confidentiality may offer greater practical advan- tage than formal registration. Risk tolerance is a further consideration. Patents pro- vide a clearer enforcement framework, while trade secrets depend on internal discipline and evidentiary readiness. Businesses rarely rely on a single form of protection. The most effective approach combines patents, trade secrets, and contractual safeguards, calibrated to how the technology is developed, used, and exposed to the market. In high-risk environments, including defence and technology sectors, businesses increasingly prioritise confidentiality over disclosure, even where patent pro- tection is available. 8.2 Cumulative and Overlapping Protection Ukrainian law permits cumulative protection of the same subject matter under multiple IP regimes, pro- vided that each right satisfies its own legal require- ments. For example, product appearance may be protected simultaneously as an industrial design, a trade mark, or under copyright.
385 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook