MÍDIA

Meta, which manages Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, won an appeal in court, allowing the company to continue using its trademark in Brazil. Judge Heraldo de Oliveira, from the São Paulo Court of Justice, suspended the effects of a previous decision that prevented the technology conglomerate from using the name “Meta” in the country.

At the end of February, the São Paulo Court had given Meta 30 days to stop using the name in Brazil. The daily fine for non-compliance had been set at R$100,000.

The decision was taken by the 1st Chamber of Business Law of the Court of Justice at the request of a Brazilian company, also in the technology segment, which has held the trademark registration granted by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) since 2008.

Risk of harm, according to the magistrate

When analyzing Meta’s appeal, Judge Heraldo de Oliveira, president of the private law section of the São Paulo Court of Justice, considered that there is a risk of damage that would be difficult to repair if the company was forced to comply with the previous decision and stop using the brand, since that there is the possibility of reversing the case in higher courts.

“The risk of irreparable damage or damage that is difficult to repair arises from the losses that would be caused by compliance, from the outset, with the determination that the appellant (Meta) cease the use of the trademarks containing the term ‘META’ and provide postings on its channels of communication and sending of letters to public bodies, within thirty calendar days, considering the possibility of reversing the R. (respectable) decision attacked, by the E. (Egrégia) Superior Court,” decided the judge, on Friday, 15.

Source: Exame

The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) pressured parliamentarians to approve a draft legislative decree (PDL) related to the Budapest Treaty. The proposal introduces this pact into the Brazilian legal framework, which provides rules for depositing microorganisms for patent applications.

The text has already passed through several committees of the Chamber of Deputies. However, the rapporteur’s opinion in the House’s Constitution, Justice, and Citizenship Committee (CCJC) is still awaiting approval.

The BPTO, represented by its president, Júlio César Moreira, has been talking to federal deputies and senators to demand progress in the process, as it understands that Brazil’s adherence to the treaty is beneficial for research and development of biotechnology.

The main advantage of including the Budapest Treaty in Brazilian legislation is the reduced costs and time for sending and filling microorganisms for patents.

These microscopic beings are currently widely used in agricultural production but can also be used by the pharmaceutical industry.

Detailed Description

A complete description of the invention sought to be protected in a patent application is necessary. The guidelines must be clear enough so that a technician in the area can reproduce the product without unnecessary or exaggerated efforts.

When a patent is granted to an inventor, third parties cannot commercialize the product for 20 years. However, the system ensures that these third parties can appropriately know the invention, study it, and place something on the market after the exclusive protection period or even innovate immediately.

“Whoever appropriates that information can go to the laboratory, develop a new product based on that existing knowledge, edge, and file a new patent,” explains the president of BPTO. “That’s what the system exists for to encourage innovation and new products on the market.”

In cases where the invention involves biological material — microorganisms — the written description is insufficient to meet this objective. Therefore, besides the report, a strain of microorganisms used in the product must be deposited in a reference center.

These centers are called international depository authorities (IDAs). They are responsible for storing the microorganisms, conserving them, and making them available to the public upon request.

IDAs, for patent purposes, are regulated by the Budapest Treaty, signed in Hungary in 1977 and force since 1980. Currently, 89 countries are signatories to the pact.

Under the rules of the treaty, countries are required to recognize microorganisms deposited in IDAs as part of the patent-obtaining procedure. Thus, a deposit with one of these authorities is valid for all signatories.

Brazil

Although Brazil is not yet part of the Budapest Treaty, the BPTO accepts the file of biological material in ID; that is, it recognizes the capacity of these authorities to receive the microorganisms used in inventions.

But, without adhesion to the pact, Brazil cannot have centers of this type in its territory. Therefore, Brazilian inventors (individuals, companies, es, or institutions send microorganisms to IDAs in other countries.

Today, 49 foreign IDAs are certified by the treaty. The best known are the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), located in Manassas, in the United States, and the German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (DSMZ, its acronym in German), from the Leibniz Institute, located in the German city of Brunswick.

In Latin America, there is only one IDA, the Chilean Collection of Microbial Genetic Resources (CChRGM), in Chillán. However, according to Júlio César Moreira, this center in Chile “is minimal” and “is not diverse” as Brazil needs.

As a member of the international pact, Brazil could have a depository center recognized worldwide to store biological material in general. Part of the collection would be focused on patents.

But this would not be automatic. The country would need to suggest institutions capable of receiving biological material so the treaty council could evaluate them.

Source: Conjur

Leia em português

BPTO ranked Brazil’s 50 most significant applicants for industrial property rights in 2023 and 2022.

Petrobras maintained its leadership in invention patents with 125 filings, 15 more than in 2022. In second place, the Federal University of Campina Grande made 101 applications, 60 more than in the previous year, when it occupied fourth place.

FCA Fiat Chrysler went from eighth place in 2022 to third last year, increasing from 31 applications to 58. The Federal University of Minas Gerais (48 filings) occupied the fourth position, which had been in second place in 2022 (54 ). The Hercílio Randon Institute appears in fifth, with 43 patent filings.

As with invention patent filings, educational institutions stand out among the 50 largest filers of computer programs in 2023, occupying 35 positions. The CPQD Foundation requests leadership (93 requests), followed by Autbank Projects and Consulting (88), Linx Systems and Consulting (55), Federal University from Sergipe (52) and Pedro Izecksohn (46).

The utility models with the highest highlights were Westrock, Pulp, Paper, and Packaging (with 17 filings), Fibracem Teleinformatics (12), Flávio Aparecido Peres (12), Edson Della Giustina (11), and Nely Cristina Braidotti (10).

In terms of trademarks, the National Confederation of Retail Managers took first place in 2023 (536 registration requests), followed by Top Defense (395), Localiza Rent a Car (230), Baptist Church from Lagoinha (186), and Baptist Convention Lagoinha (173).

In 2023, Jaderson de Almeida, with 139 registration requests, and Grendene (129) held the top two positions in industrial design. Tramontina, Franccino Móveis, and Savia Fotografia Intelectual Ltda were in third, fourth, and fifth place, respectively.

Ranking of non-resident applicants

The BPTO also released the ranking of non-resident applicants in 2023 and 2022. The companies that filed the most applications for invention patents last year at the BPTO were Qualcomm, with 1,134 filings, Huawei (460), Basf (257), Cilag ( 222), and Ericsson (208). Qualcomm and Huawei maintained their 2022 positions, while Basf rose from fourth to third place and Ericsson from sixth to fifth place.

Source: Brazilian Institute of Industrial Property

Undoubtedly, the intersection of intellectual property and artificial intelligence becomes increasingly relevant with the wide dissemination of technologies derived from it.

With 2024 beginning to take shape, the various areas of intellectual property are once again positioned as catalysts for transformation, with particular emphasis and attention being given to the intersection of intellectual property with artificial intelligence and the use of intellectual property as a tool for sustainable development.

Regarding the intersection of intellectual property with artificial intelligence, there is no doubt that this topic becomes increasingly relevant with the wide dissemination of technologies derived from it, such as ChatGPT, Jasper, and DALL-E2, creating a perspective for a society in which creativity and innovation, once characteristics unique to human beings, now involve collaboration between humans and machines.

In this sense, it is clear that this change of scenario raises crucial questions regarding how intellectual property can be applied to creations that result from joint efforts between humans and artificial intelligence, making it necessary to highlight issues involving ownership and authorship of creations and generated through these technologies, as well as the definition of legal responsibilities.

Regarding ownership and authorship, there is no consensus among jurists and different legislation on the subject, as some consider works created through collaboration between humans and artificial intelligence to be the property of the company that developed them. The technology algorithm, while another portion understands that the work would be owned and authored by the human interacting with the artificial intelligence.

Such discussions can and should be discussed this year and in the coming years in the National Congress, which regulates artificial intelligence in our country and defines a national fake intelligence policy through which parameters and guidelines for this technology will be described. , creating legal security for using, researching, and developing different types of artificial intelligence in the country.

About intellectual property as a driver of sustainable development, it is clear that this trend has already been observed by the Interministerial Group on Intellectual Property, which established, through its national strategy, a set of more than 200 actions to encourage an effective, balanced intellectual property system that encourages creativity, investments in innovation and access to knowledge.

Among these actions is the intention to conduct matchmaking in green technologies and training in the Amazon region, aiming to generate income from intellectual property assets, such as geographical indications and collective trademarks.

The trend of “green intellectual property” is not new. Still, it will undoubtedly expand in 2024, with the National Intellectual Property Institute announcing the establishment of the sustainability and biotechnology commission, which will focus on green patents, mentoring in geographical indications, a sustainable logistics program, and technological radars focusing on sustainable development.

Considering the relevance of environmentally responsible business for companies, another point of attention for this year will be the use of intellectual property as a vector for protecting products and services that incorporate ethical and sustainable principles, once again highlighting the convergence of intellectual property with governance environmental.

Thus, the prospects for intellectual property for this new year reveal a dynamic panorama, considering that it will be a tool to boost sustainable development and, at the same time, it will be essential to promote a balanced approach to the evolution of the intersection scenario with artificial intelligence.

Source: Correio Braziliense

If 2023 was the year that artificial intelligence changed everything, 2024 may be remembered as the year that US copyright law changed regarding AI.

The explosion of generative AI and the popularity of Microsoft-backed initiatives such as OpenAI, Meta, Midjourney, and others have resulted in several copyright cases brought by writers, artists, and other copyright holders who claim that AI has had success only thanks to their work.

Judges have so far been skeptical of plaintiffs’ claims of infringement based on AI-generated content. However, the courts have yet to address the more complicated and potentially billion-dollar question of whether AI companies are infringing on a massive scale by training their systems with vast amounts of images, writings, and other data obtained from the internet.

Tech companies warn that lawsuits could create significant obstacles for the growing AI industry. The plaintiffs claim the companies owe them for using their work without permission or compensation.

Several groups of authors filed class action lawsuits this year over the use of their texts in AI training. This includes writers like John Grisham and “Game of Thrones” author George R.R. Martin, comedian Sarah Silverman and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

Tech companies have hired legions of lawyers from some of the biggest law firms in the US to take on the cases. They defended AI training in comments to the US Copyright Office, comparing it to how humans learn new concepts and arguing that their use of the material qualifies as “fair use” under copyright law.

What comes next?

An ongoing lawsuit involving Thomson Reuters – the parent company of Reuters News – could be one of the first significant AI indicators copyright issues.

The company accused Ross Intelligence in 2020 of illegally copying thousands of “headnotes” from its Westlaw legal research platform. The portal summarizes court decisions and was used to train an AI-based legal search engine.

A federal judge ruled in September that the Delaware case must go to trial to determine whether Ross violated the law. The lawsuit could set an essential precedent for fair use and AI copyright litigation issues. A jury could begin hearing the case as early as August.

Source: Forbes

2024 started with something special for Disney’s iconic Mickey Mouse: the mouse became public domain (a transition that took place on January 1st). But detail: only the character’s first appearances in “Steamboat Willie” and “Plane Crazy” are in this new situation.

These animations date from 1928 and were Mickey’s debut to the public, together with his partner Minnie. The little mouse bears a lot of similarity to the current version. But, in addition to being black and white (and having other different details), the behavior is more mischievous and ruder (in fact, during most of the scenes in “Steamboat Willie”, Mickey has fun forcing animals to be musical instruments).

So, there are 95 years of animation history and, according to US law, the copyright on them has expired. And a lot of people were waiting for it.

Using Mickey sparingly

Despite Mickey Mouse’s entry into the public domain, copyright law in this regard remains complex. For example, newer design changes or depictions like Wizard Mickey from “Fantasia” are not included.

It is also not permitted to create works that falsely imply that they are from Disney, as Mickey is also a registered trademark of the company. To get a better idea of the differences between the “Mickeys”, check out the recent trailer for “Steamboat Silly”, the final episode of “The Wonderful World of Mickey Mouse” which is part of the 100th-anniversary celebration of The Walt Disney Company:

Challenges and possible legal battles

Experts point out that creators who dare to use more recent elements of the character may receive legal warnings. In other words, putting the mouse in red shorts or white gloves goes beyond what is permitted.

Mickey Mouse is also a registered trademark. Kembrew McLeod, professor of communication and intellectual property scholar at the University of Iowa (USA), recalls that trademark law in the country deals entirely with the protection of trademarks, logos, and names – such as Mickey Mouse in the logo or, simply, the name Mickey Mouse.

“And, of course, there is no end to trademark law,” adds Ruth Okediji, a professor at Harvard Law School. She says that Disney and other companies use trademarks to increase control over intellectual property. “As long as the trademark remains distinctive in the provision of goods and services, the registered trademark owner can protect it.”

Source: Olhar Digital

Leia em português aqui.

After extensive negotiations, the European Union reached a historic agreement to regulate artificial intelligence (AI), a milestone on the global technological scene. European Commissioner Thierry Breton, responsible for a series of laws on the continent, including those governing social media and search engines, announced the agreement, highlighting its historic character. This pact puts the European Union ahead of the United States and Brazil in the race to regulate AI and protect the public from risks associated with the technology.

Establishing rules to control the use of programs of this type is complex. AI has been incorporated into science, the financial system, security, health, education, advertising, and entertainment, most of the time without the user realizing it. Regulation in any country that proposes it must balance reducing the risks of misuse, avoiding discrimination against minority groups, and guaranteeing privacy and transparency for users.

Through Secretary of State for AI Carme Artigas, Spain played a tie-breaking role in the negotiations, with support from France and Germany, despite concerns from technology companies in those countries about lighter regulations to foster innovation.

An essential aspect of the agreement is the ban on real-time surveillance and biometric technologies, including emotional recognition, with specific exceptions. These technologies can only be used by the police in exceptional situations, such as terrorist threats, searching for victims, or investigating severe crimes.

The agreement is based on a risk classification system, where the strictest regulation applies to machines that pose the most significant risk to health, safety, and human rights. This new definition directly impacts models such as GPT-4 from OpenAI, which would be included in the highest-risk category.

The agreement also imposes significant obligations on AI services, including ground rules on disclosing data used to train machines. The European Parliament and the Commission have sought to ensure that the development of AI in Europe occurs human-centered, respecting fundamental rights and human values.

Brazil’s regulatory framework

Brazil was one of the pioneers in proposing the regulation of artificial intelligence. The Chamber of Deputies began discussing law in February 2020, even before ChatGPT shed light on the power of technology and the European Union started its internal debate. However, the country has failed to pass the legislation so far.

The discussions evolved with the intervention of a commission of jurists, which reformulated the original 2020 project. The Senate is deliberating on a new proposal, reported by Senator Eduardo Gomes (PL-TO).

However, the dynamism of innovation in artificial intelligence poses clear challenges to Brazilian legislators. Technological acceleration highlights the need for constant updates to legislation, and there is even room for an imaginative process of what could happen in a few years. Lawmakers need to consider that AI has opened a field of exponential evolution different from what was experienced with Moore’s Law. This concept establishes that the processing power of computers doubles every 18 months.

The proposal seeks a normative approach, establishing guidelines for various AI applications, from credit scoring to facial recognition in public security, the latter with a ban.

From a global perspective, Taiwan, starting its discussions in 2019, has not yet consolidated a regulatory framework. The island, home to TSMC, a world leader in the production of chips and semiconductors and a supplier to Nvidia, opted for laws to encourage technological development, exempting AI companies from specific regulations and taxes.

China is the only country with a regulatory framework on AI, implemented by its internet regulatory body and not via legislation. Based on studies by the Cyberspace Administration of China, its rules focus on AI platforms’ morality, ethics, transparency, and responsibility.

Countries like Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Israel, Mexico, Panama, the Philippines, and Thailand are also developing regulations.

The discussion about federal AI legislation in the United States is not yet a reality, with responsibility being delegated to the states. President Joe Biden brought together AI industry leaders in July to discuss technological security and reliability.

Globally, 21 countries have already implemented specific laws for AI, emphasizing Chile in combating AI fraud, Sweden in autonomous cars, and Spain against discriminatory bias. Additionally, 13 countries have jurisprudence related to AI, covering everything from copyright to privacy. Despite being a pioneer in the discussion, Brazil is still not among these nations.

Source: Exame