Luke Littler, the youngest darts world champion in history, has applied to the Intellectual Property Office to trademark his face. The move is intended to prevent his face being reproduced, including by generative AI, without permission. Littler has won two World Championship titles in a row and has had his image used legally on darts merchandise, as well as by multiple brands such as KP Nuts. The 19-year-old joins celebrities such as actor Matthew McConaughey who have filed to protect their likeness from AI misuse in recent months. Littler has already trademarked his nickname the Nuke in the United States.

What is artificial intelligence (AI)? The term artificial intelligence (AI) describes computer-implemented approaches to emulate human decision-making structures to enable computers and machines to process and solve problems largely independently. An essential tool for being able to arrive at independent solutions is the ability of an AI system to learn. This ability is referred to as machine learning. In this process, the AI system learns because of examples to be able to generalize given patterns after the learning phase is complete.

Acknowledging the use of AI is still in early stages, the UK Intellectual Property Office said, "[W]e will keep the law under review and could amend, replace or remove protection in future if the evidence supports [the change]." The direction to which these changes may occur remain in obscurity: the few currently offering protection may step back, more may join the group, or we may see a new system in compromise. Companies will need to keep an eye on these changes to adopt appropriate legal strategies and protection for their global portfolio of AI technology. Acknowledging the use of AI is still in early stages, the UK Intellectual Property Office said, "[W]e will keep the law under review and could amend, replace or remove protection in future if the evidence supports [the change]." The direction to which these changes may occur remain in obscurity: the few currently offering protection may step back, more may join the group, or we may see a new system in compromise.

As the innovation paradigm in automotive industry shifted over time, artificial intelligence ("AI") has deeply penetrated into operation of automotive industry. Some manufacturers seek to utilize robots that learn automotive manufacturing skills, such as design, part manufacturing, and assembly, to assist human workers. AI are also utilized in aftermarket services, such as maintenance of engine or battery performance. Unsurprisingly, automotive industry faces new intellectual property challenges including those traditionally faced by AI technology patents. What if an AI develops a method of navigation or designs a new automotive?

With the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence technology, how are AI-generated inventions recognised when it comes to patents? Innovation funding and Patent Box experts ABGI UK have recently looked into where inventions created by artificial intelligence (AI) systems currently stand in regard to intellectual property, and how potential changes will affect U.K. businesses. The output has been shared with Digital Journal. One important point that arises from AI, is that as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly advanced, how is AI-generated innovation considered when it comes to intellectual property? The issue is perhaps more pertinent than ever following the case earlier this year of Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs.

In his application, Stephen Thaler stated that the related work was created autonomously by the "creativity machine" algorithm, and it is a work created by the "work made for hire" doctrine, and that he filed the application by being the proprietor of the machine following the assignment declaration he submitted. On the other hand, Thaler requested reconsideration of this decision stating that it is unconstitutional to require a "human authorship" requirement for registration and that such a requirement is neither included in the law nor the case law. In the subsequent examination, the Office again rejected these requests, reiterating its initial assessments and stating that Thaler did not provide evidence to prove that human-provided sufficient creative contribution to the relevant work or that the human intervention had taken place. Therefore, he argued that the Office's refusal grounds were based on old views that did not address current needs. Evaluating this second request for reconsideration, the Board stated that the law protects the fruits of intellectual labour.

In a previous article of February 6, 2020, we discussed the EPO Receiving Section's refusal, in January 2020, of two European patent applications where an AI system called DABUS was indicated as the inventor1 . We then looked at the grounds of the decisions2 (concerning applications EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174 for "food container" and "devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention"), and predicted that the EPO Board of Appeal (BoA) was bound to shed light on the novel and intriguing legal issue of whether a non-human, such as an artificial intelligence (AI), could be named as inventor in the system of the EPC. The BoA has now issued its decision, which is worth commenting. The applicant, one Mr. Stephen Thaler, had filed his appeals against the refusal (cases J 8/20 and J 9/20), along with an auxiliary request whereby no person was allegedly identified as inventor, but a natural person was indicated to hold "the right to the European Patent by virtue of being the owner and creator of" the DABUS AI system. By decision of December 21, 20213, the BoA dismissed the appeal, confirming that the EPC required the inventor to be a person with legal capacity.

Car owners may soon be able to start up their cars using a face biometrics ignition solution rather than their car keys. This is possible thanks to the development of a system by LG Electronics which enables a car owner to start their car by having their facial expressions and finger movements recognized using in-built cameras, reports Digitimes. Explaining how the system works, the report states that the car owner's specific body parts are captured with one camera, and informs adjustments by the other camera, which captures their iris and other biometric characteristics. The car owner can then start up their cars and make certain controls to it using facial expressions and hand gestures. The report adds that the system is able to detect if a driver is tired or abruptly takes ill, from their facial and hand gestures as they drive.

Add the United Kingdom to the list of countries that says an artificial intelligence can't be legally credited as an inventor. Per the BBC, the UK Court of Appeal recently ruled against Dr. Stephen Thaler in a case involving the country's Intellectual Property Office. In 2018, Thaler filed two patent applications in which he didn't list himself as the creator of the inventions mentioned in the documents. Instead, he put down his AI DABUS and said the patent should go to him "by ownership of the creativity machine." The Intellectual Property Office told Thaler he had to list a real person on the application.

Launch a National AI Research and Innovation Programme to improve coordination and collaboration between the country's researchers, while "boosting business and public sector adoption of AI technologies and their ability to take them to market." Launch a joint Office for AI (OAI) and UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) programme aimed at continuing to develop AI in sectors based outside of London and the South East. This would focus on the commercialisation of ideas and could see, for example, the government focusing investment, researchers and developers to work in areas which currently do not use much AI technology but have potential, such as energy and farming. Publish a joint review with UKRI into the availability and capacity of computing power for UK researchers and organisations, including the physical hardware needed to drive a major roll out in AI technologies. The review will also consider wider needs for the commercialisation and deployment of AI, including its environmental impacts.