AI is a hot topic, particularly in the area of patent law and inventorship.

On Tuesday 21 September 2021, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent application (Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks and Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374).

Background

The present case related to two patent applications submitted to the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) by Dr Stephen Thaler. Both applications listed the inventor as ‘DABUS’, an AI machine built for the purpose of inventing, which had successfully come up with two patentable inventions. The UK IPO had refused to process either application (considering them withdrawn) as they failed to comply with the requirement to list an inventor and Dr Thaler was not entitled to apply for the patents. According to the Patents Act 1977, an inventor must be a ‘person’.

At the Court of First Instance, Mr. Justice Marcus Smith had upheld the IPO’s decision.

Continue Reading UK Court of Appeal rules AI is not an inventor

On September 17, 2021, the Illinois Court of Appeals for the First District ruled that some BIPA claims are subject to a five year statute of limitations, while others must be brought within one year. In Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 200563, the appellate court accepted a certified question

The Summer 2021 Edition of the quarterly IT & Data Protection Newsletter by Reed Smith Germany has just been released:

English version

German version

In this edition we cover the following topics:

  1. Update on international data transfers
  2. State Labour Court of Baden-Württemberg: No claim for damages for transferring personal data to the United States on

The Spring 2021 Edition of the quarterly IT & Data Protection Newsletter by Reed Smith Germany has just been released:

English version

German version

In this edition we cover the following topics:

  1. New cookie rules in Germany will apply as of December 1, 2021
  2. German data protection authorities conduct coordinated audits on international data transfers

In Bellingham, Alex v. Reed, Michael [2021] SGHC 125 (Alex v. Reed) The Singapore High Court considered the loss or damage needed for a private action to be brought against an organisation for a breach of the PDPA. In particular, the court found that a mere loss of control over personal data, or emotional distress

The Winter 2021 Edition of the quarterly IT & Data Protection Newsletter by Reed Smith Germany has just been released:

English version

German version

In this edition we cover the following topics:

  1. Strengthening fair competition – changes to the law against unfair competition
  2. Cologne Regional Court on the broad concept of the right to access

The Fall 2020 Edition of the quarterly IT & Data Protection Newsletter by Reed Smith Germany has just been released:

English version

German version

In this edition we cover the following topics:

1. Data transfers following Schrems II
2. German Supreme Court: Relationship between the GDPR and the German Act on the Protection of Copyrights

On 11 November 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Orange România SA v Autoritatea Naţională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP) (Case C-61/19) delivered its preliminary ruling on the issue of valid consent under the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679/EU (GDPR) and Directive 95/46/EC. You can read the judgment here.

The CJEU held that a printed contract for mobile telecommunication services containing a clause stating that the customer has consented to the collection and storage of their identity documents does not constitute valid consent where the box referring to that clause has been pre-ticked by the data controller before the contract was signed.

The case follows up on the previous ruling in Planet49 (Case C-673/17) on which we commented last year here and here.

Continue Reading CJEU delivers judgment on conditions for valid consent in an offline context

Class actions are widely known for their popularity in the United States. These types of actions are now developing in the UK because of recent data breach litigations.

In the UK, group litigation can arise in two different scenarios: Group Litigation Order (“GLO”) or representative actions. GLOs are orders given by the Courts to manage collectively different claims that give rise to “common or related issues of fact or law”. The claimants in a GLO need to opt-in to join the GLO; however, all claims remain separate. A representative action, on the other hand, allows a representative to bring an action on behalf of a class of claimants who have the “same interests” in the claim. Any judgment in a representative action will be binding on all class members represented, unless they actively opt-out’of the claim. It is worth noting that the English Courts have discretion to allow any group litigations to proceed.
Continue Reading The rise of data protection group litigation actions in England and Wales