INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
Introduction: Intellectual Property at a Turning Point Intellectual property law is undergoing a period of profound transformation. Across the world’s major jurisdictions, courts and legislatures are confront- ing a set of converging pressures: the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, the borderless nature of digital commerce, and the surging economic value of intan- gible assets. From China’s evolving case law on AI- generated content to Japan’s landmark patent dam- ages award, from South Korea’s punitive copyright reforms to Europe’s cross-border enforcement frame- work, the same fundamental questions are emerging everywhere: who owns creative output, where does infringement occur, and how should rights be valued? This guide maps the key developments shaping the new global IP landscape. AI and the Reinvention of Intellectual Property Every jurisdiction covered in this guide is grappling with AI in some form, although their approaches differ significantly. China has gone furthest in developing a body of case law around AI-generated content. Early decisions sug- gested that sophisticated prompts might be enough to support claims of originality. More recent judg- ments have taken a stricter approach. Courts now require convincing evidence that a human exercised meaningful creative control over the output. Detailed generation records, evidence of iterative input, and proof of substantive human contribution have become increasingly important. The Chinese courts have also been active in defining the liability of generative AI platforms. Landmark decisions have distinguished between platforms that directly influence or control infringing outputs and those that merely fail to pre- vent them. These distinctions are beginning to shape expectations across the wider technology sector. Elsewhere, the focus is different. Germany is wrestling with the practical implications of AI training and text and data mining. Courts and policymakers are exam- ining how copyright holders can effectively reserve their rights and whether such reservations must be machine-readable in order to have legal effect.
South Korea has embraced AI both as a regulatory challenge and as a regulatory tool. AI-powered sys- tems now assist with patent analysis and design searches, helping improve enforcement and exami- nation processes. At the same time, authorities have tightened standards for AI-related inventions, reflect- ing concerns about maintaining patent quality in a rapidly developing field. The End of Traditional Borders Another striking theme is the growing strain on one of the oldest principles in IP law: territoriality. Historically, legal rights were closely tied to geog- raphy. A patent granted in one country generally stopped at that country’s borders. Digital commerce has complicated that assumption. Online platforms, cloud infrastructure and international marketplaces make it increasingly difficult to determine where an allegedly infringing act actually occurs. Japan’s Supreme Court, in Dwango v FC2 , held that acts performed on overseas servers can constitute patent infringement if their effects manifest within Japan and the services are directed at the Japanese market – assessing the infringing act as a whole rather than mapping the location of each component. South Korea has reached similar conclusions. In one notable case, a Chinese company marketed products through a foreign platform but used Korean-language descriptions, Korean-won pricing and Korean delivery options. The court held that these activities amounted to an offer directed at the Korean market, despite the infrastructure being located elsewhere. China has also expanded its reach through legislative reform. Amendments to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law now expressly address conduct occurring out- side China when it disrupts domestic market order. Meanwhile, Europe is pursuing a different but equal- ly significant solution. The Unified Patent Court is extending enforcement reach across multiple partici- pating states through a single proceeding. Although the legal reasoning differs, the direction is unmistakable: the assumption that server location
6 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook