Choose Site

The World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) held its third “Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence” on November 4, 2020, to discuss its revised issues paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence. This session identified the following issues:

  1. Defining artificial intelligence (AI) and future-proofing its definition as the technology evolves, exploring what is AI inputted and AI generated.
  2. The impact of AI on trademarks and the implications of human perception to determine registration and infringement of trademarks.
  3. The role of intellectual property (IP) policy in bridging the capacity gap.
  4. The policy implications of using AI in IP administration.

You signed a deal with the US subsidiary of an India-based service provider, and the Indian parent issued a guaranty. Several years later, you are now amending the original master services agreement (MSA) to add to the scope or extend the term, and you are faced with the question of whether you need the guarantor to reconfirm that the guaranty continues in effect to the MSA, as amended— the best course of action is that you do.

When a company desires to develop technology, it has two options: develop the technology in-house by its employees, or contract with a third-party developer to develop the technology. Any time a company contracts with a third party to develop technology for the company, one of the key issues in the agreement should be allocation of intellectual property ownership.

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has recently handed down two of the largest fines relating to a data breach in UK history.

In August 2018, British Airways (BA) was subject to a cyberattack which breached the personal data of nearly 500,000 individuals, contravening the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As Morgan Lewis reported in July 2019, the ICO initially filed a Notice of Intent to fine BA £183m ($227.5 million) – the equivalent of 1.5% of BA’s annual global turnover in 2017.

Please join us on November 11 for a webinar discussing Russian privacy laws. Technology, outsourcing, and commercial transactions partners Anastasia Dergacheva and Ksenia Andreeva will discuss privacy regulations worldwide and trends for 2021, with a focus on Russian privacy law. Topics will include:

  • Processing health-related data and new challenges
  • Transition to remote working environment, and how it impacts privacy regulations
  • Compliance with Russian data localization rule and a 2020 court practice update
  • Pre-coronavirus (COVID-19) and COVID-19-related legislative initiatives in the data privacy field, and what to expect in 2021

The webinar will take place on Wednesday, November 11, 2020, from 10:00–11:00 am ET.

Register for the webinar now >>

The use of aggregated data by technology service providers is quite common in today’s landscape, and something that even traditionally cautious customers have become amenable to in the right circumstances and subject to proper limitations. As widespread adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technology continues, providers and customers of AI solutions should carefully consider the proper scope of aggregated data use in the design and implementation of the AI solutions.

In a recent post, we addressed the US Department of Justice’s recent recommendations to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to provide incentives for online platforms to address illicit material on their platforms, and the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act (PACT), legislation proposed by two US senators that is also aimed at reforming Section 230 of the CDA. Since the time of that post, we’ve continued to track developments regarding Section 230 of the CDA and we have some updates for our readers.

Morgan Lewis partner Reece Hirsch will moderate and present on a panel titled “Digital Health Privacy: OCR and FTC Perspectives” during the virtual 2020 Privacy + Security Forum on October 22.

The session will address the latest issues and trends in digital health privacy regulation, featuring the perspectives of senior regulators from the US Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The panel will examine the overlapping jurisdictions of the OCR and FTC with respect to a variety of digital health products, including mobile apps, activity trackers, and voice assistants, focusing on a series of hypotheticals.

We hope you'll join Reece on Thursday, October 22, 2020, from 11:30 am to 12:30 pm ET.

More information >>

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently released a report titled “Public Views on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy,” which addresses the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on various intellectual property (IP) regimes. Per the USPTO’s press release announcing the report, the report “represents the agency’s firm commitment to keeping pace with this rapidly changing and critical technology.”

In December 2019, we published a blog post introducing open banking; here, we provide an update for 2020. To briefly summarize, open banking comprises a set of rules which permit third-party providers (TPPs) of financial services to access a customer’s financial data with their explicit consent.

In the United Kingdom, open banking is delivered through the Open Banking Implementation Entity (OBIE), which was established by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). All TPPs must be authorized by the UK’s financial regulator, the FCA. As of July 2020, there are 267 regulated providers, up from 104 at the beginning of 2019.