Intellectual property (IP) is the legal mechanism that transforms intangible instances into tradeable commodities. While creating the conditions for extraction of value and capital accumulation across all domains of economic and social life, IP law defines at the same time the boundaries of commodification by determining the scope of the public domain. Within this traditional framework, opponents of neo-liberal market expansionism have championed the role of IP doctrines and principles such as fair use, exceptions and limitations. However, new informational capitalism relies primarily on non-IP forms of appropriation and de facto control. To a large extent, commodification of intangibles and capital accumulation is no longer distressed by – and even benefits from – traditional public-domain-enhancing IP doctrines. This challenges traditional IP narratives and calls for a new foundation for a truly counter-hegemonic discourse in IP law.

Legal information professionals can play a vital role when it comes to patents, whether that's through undertaking research to assist in infringement cases or by assisting in providing due diligence information by conducting searches to identify a company's patent portfolio. But those doing patent research need to know how to identify patents, how to determine their status and how to investigate the litigation history of patents. Niamh Hanratty, of Bird & Bird, explains how all this is done.

This article focuses on copyright issues pertaining to generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems, with particular emphasis on the ChatGPT case study as a primary exemplar. In order to generate high-quality outcomes, generative AI systems require substantial quantities of training data, which may frequently comprise copyright-protected information. This prompts inquiries into the legal principles of fair use, the creation of derivative works and the lawfulness of data gathering and utilisation. The utilisation of input data for the purpose of training and enhancing AI models presents significant concerns regarding potential violations of copyright. This paper offers suggestions for safeguarding the interests of copyright holders and competitors, while simultaneously addressing legal challenges and expediting the advancement of AI technologies. This study analyses the ChatGPT platform as a case example to explore the necessary modifications that copyright regulations must undergo to adequately tackle the intricacies of authorship and ownership in the realm of AI-generated creative content.

This article uses data from several publicly available databases to show that the distribution of intellectual property for frontier technologies, including those useful for sustainable development, is very highly skewed in favor of a handful of developed countries. The intellectual property rights (IPR) regime as it exists does not optimize the global flow of technology and know-how for the attainment of the sustainable development goals and is in need of updating. Some features of the Fourth Industrial Revolution imply that the current system of patents is even more in need of reform than before. COVID-19 vaccines and therapies and the vast inequality in access to these has highlighted the costs of inaction. We recommend several policy changes for the international IPR regime. Broadly, these fall into three categories: allowing greater flexibility for developing countries, reassessing the appropriateness of patents for technologies that may be considered public goods, and closing loopholes that allow for unreasonable intellectual property protections.

The recent Covid-19 global health crisis not only brings into sharp relief the current problems afflicting the international intellectual property regime (IIPR) but also calls into question its legitimacy as an international authority. Against this backdrop, the article aims to launch an investigation into the legitimacy of the IIPR, as an international co-ordinative authority, designed to protect IP rights without prejudice to international trade norms. Drawing on Raz’s service conception of authority, it explores whether the IIPR lives up to its promises by enabling co-ordination between states over IP rights without undermining the initial balance on which it is founded, struck between developing and developed countries, as well as between international protection of IP- cum-trade rights and domestic regulatory autonomy. It does so by classifying the historical evolution of the IIPR under three different phases: (i) its foundation, (ii) before, and (iii) after the TRIPS-plus. Upon showing the legitimacy challenges inherent in its undemocratic foundation, the article points to the success of the regime in finding a balance between conflicting interests before the TRIPS-plus era. Later, it underlines the many challenges that come with linking the IIPR to the investment regime and argues that the FTAs and frequent regime-shifting activities put further pressure on the authority and legitimacy of the regime. Stressing the importance of democratic participation for the legitimacy of any co-ordinative authority, the article casts doubt on the IIPR’s legitimacy and concludes by raising some points to overcome the ongoing legitimacy challenges.

This article interrogates the traditional limitations of the concept of bailment at common law. It argues that, although possession is a critical element, in modern commerce, a bailment relationship should be capable of being created without actual physical possession and control, but through constructive possession, which is as effective as physical possession and control. With this adjustment to the interpretation of the element of possession, bailment could then apply to intangible property, such as intellectual property. With the support of evidence from other progressive common law jurisdictions and inroads from the tort of conversion and criminal theft, the article argues that this new bailment jurisprudence is beginning to emerge. It then recommends that, in deserving circumstances, the courts should not hesitate to find that a bailment relationship exists, notwithstanding the absence of physical control and possession, at least pending legislative intervention.

Indigenous or traditional knowledge (TK) systems are the springboard of authentic African innovation and creativity. However, there has been no adequate attempt to determine whether Africa internalizes its comparative advantage in Indigenous knowledge systems in its continental frameworks for socio-economic and development collaboration and aspirations. Despite TK's presumed significance and Africa's proactive promotion of Indigenous knowledge in international fora, TK is treated marginally in key instruments, perhaps as a legacy of colonially entrenched contempt for Indigenous knowledge systems. For Africa to effectively participate in the science and technology revolution, it is necessary to have an introspective and critical appraisal of the present traction around Indigenous knowledge, which is a logical starting point for effective science, technology and innovation policy-making in furtherance of African socio-economic and development collaboration in the knowledge economy.

The allocation of any benefit that arises from worker-generated innovation is complicated by the importance of three separate areas of law — employment law, intellectual property law and equity — and the distinction between those types of innovation that attract intellectual property rights and those types that do not (the latter being a category that is often referred to as ‘know-how’). The purpose of this article is to engage with the legal scholarship on the principles that are relevant to innovation. To date, the discussion has focused on two distinct approaches — what may be termed the economic and the fairness perspectives. The former may be seen as a justification for the current regime, while the latter has focused on the perceived needs of workers (in large part in opposition to the employers). Our argument is that these two approaches are both incomplete. In an attempt to get closer to a workable framework for the effective allocation of benefits, we offer a third approach; one that is based on the practices that are central to the employer-worker relationship.

A significant issue in combatting the Covid-19 pandemic is the need to enhance developing states’ access to Covid-19 vaccines. The present paper considers the request for a temporary waiver of intellectual property rights in relation to Covid-19 technologies and treatments submitted to the World Trade Organization and analyses a key argument against the proposed waiver: that the compulsory licensing provisions set out in the TRIPS Agreement are sufficiently flexible to help states get access to vaccines. The compulsory licensing flexibilities set out in TRIPS, including the amendment to TRIPS in Article 31bis, are evaluated, to explore whether compulsory licensing could be an effective tool in helping developing states to access Covid-19 vaccines. Key issues are explored from a human rights perspective to examine whether a rights-based approach to the compulsory licensing provisions could offer further insights as to how the provisions could be more workable, to enhance access to medicines and vaccines for developing states.