TAIWAN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Tsung-Yuan Shen, Rachel Chen and Josh Tsai, Lee and Li Attorneys-at-Law
Lee and Li Attorneys-at-Law 8F, No 555, Sec 4 Zhongxiao E Rd Taipei 110055 Taiwan ROC 5F, Science Park Life Hub No 1 Industry E 2nd Rd Hsinchu Science Park Hsinchu 300091 Taiwan ROC
Tel: +886 2 2763 8000 Fax: +886 2 2766 5566 Email: attorneys@leeandli.com Web: www.leeandli.com/EN
In recent years, rapid advancement of generative arti - ficial intelligence (AI) and cloud services has been a significant catalyst for the expansion of the technol - ogy outsourcing market. Generative AI has provided elevated capabilities in automation and computing, enabling enterprises to develop innovations with greater efficiency. At the same time, cloud services offer increasingly flexible and scalable infrastructure solutions, thereby reducing enterprises’ information technology costs and simplifying management com - plexities. This article provides a concise overview of key legal issues and emerging trends related to AI and cloud services under Taiwan’s legal framework. AI and Intellectual Property Rights AI cannot be recognised as a patentee AI, by simulating human cognition and employing learning algorithms and computational processes, can perform specific tasks and generate research and development outcomes. However, recent rulings by Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court and the Supreme Administrative Court have unequivo - cally held that AI cannot be recognised as an inventor of patents. The courts have held that under current Taiwan laws and regulations, an inventor must be a natural person who has made a substantive intellectual contribution to the technical features claimed in a patent applica -
tion. Since AI is legally classified as a thing or object rather than a legal person, under the principle of jus rerum AI lacks the legal personality and capacity to be recognised as a patent holder or designated as an inventor. Copyright issues concerning content generated by generative AI Pursuant to the Copyright Act of Taiwan, copyright protection is granted only to works created by natural persons or legal entities capable of holding rights and obligations. Consequently, whether AI-generated con - tent qualifies for copyright protection depends on the presence of meaningful human creative input during the creation process. In a development process where AI functions solely as an auxiliary tool, such as drafting software, and human creativity is demonstrably involved, the resulting work may be eligible for copyright protection. Except where otherwise provided under Article 11 (regarding works made for hire) and Article 12 (regarding commissioned work) of the Copyright Act, copyright in such works generally vests in the person who contributed the cre - ative input. Conversely, if the creation is entirely the product of AI’s autonomous computational processes absent any human intellectual contribution, the result - ing work is not entitled to copyright protection.
57 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook