With judgment no. 3118 dated 11 April 2025, the Italian Council of State addressed, for the first time, the practical application of the rules on ambush marketing introduced by Law Decree no. 16/2020 (“Urgent measures for the organization and execution of the Milan-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games and the ATP Finals in Turin 2021–2025, as well as provisions on parasitic advertising”), which established a new layer of public enforcement by the Italian Competition and Market Authority (“AGCM” or “Authority”) in an area traditionally handled by the civil courts. The Court confirmed the fine issued by the Authority against Zalando for its advertising campaign during UEFA Euro 2020.

The Case

On 29 March 2022, the AGCM fined Zalando EUR 100.000 for placing a large billboard (shown below) in Rome, near the official UEFA Football Village during Euro 2020. The advertisement was not authorized by UEFA, and Zalando was not among the official sponsors.

Although the advertisement contained no direct references to the event, the AGCM considered it misleading. It depicted a white football jersey with Zalando’s logo, surrounded by the flags of the 24 participating nations, along with the claim “Who will be the winner?”. According to the Authority, these visual elements were capable of creating a false impression that Zalando was an official sponsor, falling within the definition of ambush marketing under Article 10 of Law Decree no. 16/2020.

Zalando challenged the decision before the Regional Administrative Court (“TAR”) of Lazio, which upheld the AGCM’s decision. The company then filed an appeal with the Council of State, which rejected it in full.

A machine translation of the decision is available here, whilst the Italian original is available here.

A danger-based offense and the “framing effect”

The administrative judges clarified that the scope of Article 10 goes beyond the unauthorized use of official logos or names. It also covers any content that, even indirectly, can mislead the public about the relationship existing between the advertiser and the organizer of the event, giving the impression that a relationship of sponsorship exists. This is a danger-based administrative offense: what matters is whether the message, considering both its content and context, is likely to cause confusion.

To support its conclusion, the Council of State drew on the concept of the so-called “framing effect” from cognitive psychology, according to which decisions can be significantly influenced by the context in which a particular message is presented to its addressees, or by the way in which a series of alternatives is structured. In this case, the combination of elements characterizing the advertisement – such as the soccer jersey, the proximity to the Football Village, and the slogan used – created a “framing effect” likely to mislead the public into believing that Zalando was one of the event’s official sponsors.

The broader framework disciplining ambush marketing in Italy

The decision of the Council of State also underlines that, under Italian law, ambush marketing is not only relevant from the perspective of public enforcement by the AGCM – through the new legislation set forth in Law Decree No. 16/2020 – but also from the traditional perspective of civil enforcement through the civil courts. The rules on unfair competition, trademark protection and consumer protection aim at protecting consumers and competitors from deceptive practices and safeguard the value of official sponsorships.

The Council of State also emphasized that, in relation to parasitic advertising, the civil courts have developed a consistent body of case law (for one of the first precedents in the area, handled by our firm, see here) and identified three main forms of ambush marketing:

  • Ambush by association: when there is a risk of creating an association between the brand and the event;
  • Ambush by intrusion: in cases of unauthorized presence of the brand at or near the venue;
  • Opportunistic marketing: when the unauthorized advertiser tries to exploit the media exposure associated with specific moments of the official event for visibility.

In all instances, ambush marketing is considered deceptive because it misleads the average consumer about the existence of a relationship of sponsorship or affiliation.

Freedom of expression

Zalando claimed that the fine issued by the AGCM infringed its freedom of expression. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the legality of advertising depends not just on the message, but also on the context in which it is displayed. The same advertisement, placed elsewhere, might not have raised issues.

The regulation, the judges stressed, strikes a fair balance between fundamental rights (such as freedom of expression) and the need to protect the investments of official sponsors.

A new layer of risk for campaign planners and a new enforcement tool for official sponsors and event organizers

The judgment sends a strong signal: without prior authorization, even a seemingly neutral campaign can cross the line into unlawful advertising if the context makes it misleading for the public.

Brands planning campaigns around high-profile events – including the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics – must tread carefully. The new discipline established by Law Decree no. 16/2020 sets a new layer of risk, with the possibility of significant fines (in the range between EUR 100.000 and 2,5 million) issued by the AGCM in addition to the traditional risk of civil remedies.

Importantly, these new rules are generally applicable (ambush marketing is broadly defined and the new rules apply in the context of any “sporting or trade fair event”) and increase the need of reviewing the compliance of any advertising campaign planned in conjunction with such events, to ensure that risk is minimized.

On the other hand, official sponsors and event organizers now have an additional layer to seek protection, possibly in parallel with urgent enforcement before the civil courts. Enforcement strategies will need to be tuned to the specific needs, leveraging the advantages of the various enforcement options.

In all instances, in the new environment clients will require outside counsel teams well versed in both civil litigation and public enforcement before the AGCM.

EUIPO (here)

1. Introduction

    Structured in two phases, the first phase (“Phase I”) of the long-awaited EU Design Legislative Reform (also known as the “Design Package”) officially came into effect last 1 May 2025. This reform represents a comprehensive overhaul of the EU design protection system, aiming to modernize it in light of digital transformation, virtual products, and evolving market practices.

    While the second phase (“Phase II”) will come into effect on 1 July 2026, introducing additional legal and procedural changes, the EUIPO has just issued its updated 2025 Guidelines on 28 May 2025 (“EUIPO Guidelines”)[1], which will apply as of 1 July 2025, thus complementing the legislative amendments.

    In addition to the directly applicable Regulation (EU) 2024/2822[2], Directive (EU) 2024/2823[3] was also adopted and entered into force on 8 December 2024. Deadline for EU Member States to transpose this Directive into national law is set for 9 December 2027. The Directive covers areas not fully harmonized by the Regulation, such as national design rights, invalidity proceedings, and the implementation of the repair clause at national level.

    This article outlines some key regulatory updates introduced in Phase I, briefly analyses the new EUIPO Guidelines, and anticipates a number of implications for professionals and design rights holders arising from Phase II and the 2027 transposition deadline.

    2. Phase I: Key Legislative Changes

    a) Broadened Definition of “Design” and “Product”

      Besides updating the terminology used[4], one of the most notable updates is the expansion of the definition of “design” to encompass dynamic, digital, and animated elements, such as:

      • animated user interfaces (GUIs)
      • visual transitions and effects
      • multimedia representations
      • designs usable in virtual and augmented reality environments

      Accordingly, the definition of “product” has also been extended in order to include not only tangible products, but also non-physical ones, including:

      • digital goods in video games and the metaverse
      • virtual interfaces or technological effects
      • designs applied to digital or interactive surfaces

      These updates aim to align legal definitions with the new technological realities, opening design protection to many forms of digital expression.

      b) Revised Visibility Requirements

      One of the more technically nuanced aspects of the reform is the clarification of the visibility criteria.

      Previously, a design had to be visible “during normal use” of the product to be eligible for protection. This created legal uncertainty, especially for internal components or digital-only features.

      Under the new provisions:

      • for general products, visibility is assessed based on the representation provided in the application for registration, not how the product is used in practice. This means that designs no longer need to be visible during normal use if their aesthetic features are clearly shown in the registration
      • for complex products (i.e., products made of multiple replaceable parts, permitting disassembly and reassembly of the product), only the components that are visible during normal use by the end user and not during servicing or maintenance are eligible for protection. This is consistent with the repair clause introduced to promote fair competition in spare parts markets.

      This change widens protection for digital components and interactive interfaces, allowing companies to register more aspects of their product designs without being constrained by functional visibility standards.

      c) Spare Parts and the Repair Clause

      The Design Package update and address the issue of the so-called “repair clause”, clarifying the exception to design protection for spare parts used in the repair of complex products (e.g. cars).

      The clause ensures that visible components of complex products, used solely for repair purposes, can be manufactured and sold by third parties, provided that:

      • the part restores the original appearance of the product
      • consumers are not misled about its origin

      This harmonizes the controversial “must-match” rule across the EU, favouring consumer choice and aftermarket competition.

      d) Digital Files and 3D Printing

      Design owners now have explicit rights to prevent:

      • the creation and distribution of digital files designed for the reproduction of protected products (e.g., STL files)
      • the unauthorized 3D printing of products based on such files

      This provision targets the growing issue of digital piracy and unauthorized reproduction in sectors such as fashion, furniture, automotive, and consumer electronics.

      e) Transit Goods and Customs Enforcement

      Design protection now clearly extends to goods in transit through the EU, even if not intended for sale within the EU market, unless the declarant can prove the goods do not infringe design rights in their destination country. This aims to improve anti-counterfeiting enforcement and legal certainty at EU borders.

      f) Streamlined Procedures and Greater Filing Flexibility

      Updates include:

      • the possibility to file up to 50 designs in a single application, even across different Locarno classes, removing the prior requirement of class homogeneity
      • new accepted forms of representation, such as photos, technical drawings, 3D renderings, and video files, allowing applicants to show design features more effectively
      • additional flexibility for accompanying descriptions and supplementary materials

      Please note that a key transitional deadline is set for 31 December 2025.Design holders with existing registrations must align their representations with the new technical requirements (e.g., accepted file formats, clarity rules, and view consistency).

      Failure to update representations may affect enforceability or renewal eligibility.

      g) Increased Renewal Fees

      While initial registration fees remain unchanged, the renewal fees have increased substantially to encourage strategic portfolio management:

      • 1st renewal: €150
      • 2nd renewal: €300
      • 3rd renewal: €500
      • 4th renewal: €700

      3. The EUIPO Guidelines

      The 2025 edition of the EUIPO Guidelines, published on 28 May 2025, reflects the above legal updates and provides detailed instructions on their implementation. Key aspects include:

      • Accepted file formats: EUIPO now formally accepts animated (.mp4, .gif) and 3D object formats (.obj, .stl), with specified technical requirements
      • Multiple design applications: clarifications on how to manage filings containing designs from different sectors or product classes
      • Overlap with trademarks: guidance on how to distinguish between 3D trademarks and registered designs to avoid registration conflicts
      • Transit enforcement and scope: clarifications on how in-transit goods are handled by EUIPO and customs authorities

      4. Phase II: What to Expect

      The second phase of the reform will come into effect on 1 July 2026 introducing further updates, including:

      • simplified invalidity procedures for uncontested cases with shorter timelines and reduced costs
      • improved access to unregistered design protection, especially for SMEs and independent designers
      • potential introduction of specific registers or procedures for designs in digital environments, including those used in metaverse applications or video games

      5. National Transposition of the Directive

      As said, while the Regulation is directly applicable across the EU, the accompanying Directive requires Member States to transpose its provisions into their national legal systems by 9 December 2027. This concerns:

      • alignment of terminology and definitions across the EU
      • national design rights and procedures
      • local implementation of the repair clause
      • harmonized rules for invalidity proceedings at the national level

      IP professionals should monitor each Member State’s implementation process closely, as variations in timing and interpretation may affect litigation and filing strategies.

      6. Strategic Takeaways for IP Professionals

      This reform marks a turning point in the EU’s design law framework, aligning it with the realities of a digital and interconnected economy. For IP professionals, brand owners, and design-focused industries, immediate actions possibly include:

      • reviewing and updating filing strategies to benefit from broader scope and digital-friendly formats
      • reassessing design portfolios in view of higher renewal costs
      • adapting licensing and enforcement contracts, especially to address digital file use and 3D printing
      • meeting the 31 December 2025 deadline for aligning design representations
      • preparing for additional updates coming with Phase II in July 2026
      • monitoring national implementation of the Directive by December 2027

      7. Conclusion

      The EU Design Reform represents the most significant transformation in over two decades of European design law. With Phase I already in force, Phase II on the horizon, and the Directive’s transposition deadline approaching in December 2027, stakeholders must act now to align their strategies, rights, and procedures.

      [1] A summary of the main items that have changed is available at the following link: https://www.euipo.europa.eu/it/news/the-2025-euipo-guidelines

      [2] Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002. Full text available here https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202402822.

      [3] Directive (EU) 2024/2823 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the legal protection of designs (recast). Full text available here https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202402823.

      [4] See here https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/designs/design-reform-hub/terminology-procedural-changes.

      A Recent Entrance to Paradise (here)

      On March 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rendered its awaited decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter case, definitively rejecting Stephen Thaler’s attempt to register copyright for the AI-generated artwork ‘A Recent Entrance to Paradise’. The ruling, closely aligned with the approach shown by U.S. Courts in numerous previous decisions[1], reaffirms the ‘human authorship’ requirement under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 and, in doing so, highlights the growing distance between statutory language and technological evolution.

      Background and Legal Trajectory of the Thaler Case

      In the early 1990s Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist and a pioneer in the generative AI and IP landscape, developed ‘Creativity Machine’ a generative AI system that, in Thaler’s own words, autonomously produced the artwork at issue.

      In 2018 Thaler filed a copyright registration, listing himself as the copyright claimant but naming his ‘Creativity Machine’ as the sole author. In February 2022, after several denials by the competent first-instance offices, the Review Board of the U.S. Copyright Office (‘USCO’) issued a final administrative denial of Thaler’s copyright application[2], based on its established ‘human authorship’ requirement — a condition explicitly unmet in the case at hand, as a result of Thaler’s express (and intentionally provocative) choice to list the AI as the sole author.

      Thaler then sought judicial review, stating that neither the Constitution nor the Copyright Act explicitly mandates human authorship, and that denying protection to an original, creative work merely because it was generated by an AI is bad policy that undermines the incentive structure of copyright law. Nevertheless, in August 2023, the District Court of Columbia upheld the USCO’s decision, stating that ‘human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright’[3]. Persisting in his challenge, Thaler appealed once again, and the case proceeded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (‘Court of Appeals’ or ‘Court’).

      The decision of the Court of Appeals

      In its detailed decision issued on March 18, 2025[4], the Court of Appeals stated that, although the Copyright Act does not explicitly define ‘author’ as a human being, that meaning is implicit, based on longstanding judicial interpretation, as well as on numerous statutory provisions of the Act — such as those relating to the life of the author and inheritance rights — which presuppose a human subject[5].

      The Court of Appeals also rejected Thaler’s alternative arguments under which, based on several legal theories (including the ‘work-made-for-hire’ doctrine), authorship on the AI-generated work should revert to him, reaffirming that human authorship is required even in such cases.

      Additionally, Thaler’s late-stage claim that copyright in the AI’s work would transfer to him as inventor of the AI or as the hardware’s owner was deemed procedurally waived, as it was neither properly raised before the USCO nor adequately preserved in his appeal[6].

      Brief considerations on the Court of Appeals’ decision

      As said, the outcome of this decision was largely expected and it aligns with earlier precedents, such as the famous monkey selfie case Naruto v. Slater[7] and the recent Allen v. Perlmutter case[8], which similarly emphasized the centrality of human authorship in U.S. copyright law according to established local case-law.

      Notably, the Court of Appeals’ decision leaves open how courts might view works where an AI is used as a tool under meaningful human direction (so-called ‘AI-assisted’ works), since Thaler deliberately labelled the artwork as autonomously conceived by the AI[9].

      Moreover, and most importantly, the Court of Appeals – addressing one of the arguments most frequently advanced by proponents of AI-authorship – noted that if the human-authorship requirement eventually ‘stymies the creation of original work’ that is a dilemma for Congress to address, not the Courts[10].

      Invoking a cardinal principle of judicial restraint the Court refused to venture beyond the statute’s clear requirements to consider what might be good policy in the age of creative AI[11]. Instead, the decision underscored that the proper forum for tackling AI and copyright is the legislative process and expert agencies. In support, the opinion pointed out that the political branches have already begun examining how copyright law should adapt to AI.

      For instance, in 2023 the USCO launched a public study on Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, seeking input on how the existing frameworks apply to AI-generated outputs and whether law reforms are needed[12]. Likewise, a bipartisan House of Representatives Task Force on AI issued a comprehensive report in late 2024 addressing IP challenges posed by AI, signalling that Congress is actively ‘grappling’ with these issues[13]. In the Court’s reasoning: ‘Congress and the Copyright Office are the proper audiences for Dr. Thaler’s policy and practical arguments’[14].

      By highlighting these developments, the Court of Appeals effectively (and correctly) emphasized that any expansion of authorship to non-humans or any new sui generis protections eventually crafted for AI-generated works lie in the hands of lawmakers (whose interventions are closely watched by IP professionals worldwide).

      Ultimately, the Court’s recognition that these complex issues shall be addressed legislatively is both prudent and necessary. As indicated by ongoing initiatives within the USCO and Congress, the legal framework will inevitably need to evolve to reflect the realities of contemporary creative processes.

      For the time being, however, the protection of AI-generated content remains firmly beyond the reach of U.S. copyright law.

      [1] See, amongst many, the Allen vs. Perlmutter case, as commented in a previous article published on this blog on November, 19, 2024, titled “The digital author – An AI artist challenges the USCO’s decision that an ‘AI-assisted’ artwork is not eligible for copyright protection” available at the following link: https://www.ipinitalia.com/copyright/the-digital-author-an-ai-artist-challenges-the-uscos-decision-that-an-ai-assisted-artwork-is-not-eligible-for-copyright-protection/.

      [2] See USCO, Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register A Recent Entrance to Paradise (Correspondence ID 1-3ZPC6C3; SR # 1-7100387071) of 14th February 2022.

      [3] See U.S. District Court of Columbia, Thaler v. Perlmutter, Case No. 22-1564, 18th August 2023, p. 8.

      [4] See U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, Thaler v. Perlmutter, Case No. 23-5233, 18th March 2025.

      [5] See U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, ibidem, p. 9-11.

      [6] See U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, ibidem, p. 23.

      [7] See Naruto vs. Slater, Case No. 16-15469, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 23rd April 2018 (animal lacks statutory standing to claim copyright).

      [8] See Allen v. Perlmutter, Case No. 1:24-cv-02665, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, 26th September 2024.

      [9] Contrarily to Mr. Allen, who, in Allen v. Perlmutter case, argued that he should retain authorship based on the complex and constant instructions and inputs he gave to the AI system, which merely functioned as his tool (see https://www.ipinitalia.com/copyright/the-digital-author-an-ai-artist-challenges-the-uscos-decision-that-an-ai-assisted-artwork-is-not-eligible-for-copyright-protection/)

      [10] See U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, ibidem, p. 21.

      [11] Stating that: ‘This court’s job, by contrast, “is to apply the statute as it is written,” not to wade into technologically uncharted copyright waters and try to decide what “might ‘accord with good policy’ (see ibidem).

      [12] SeeUSCO, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 1: Digital Replicas at 57 (Jul. 31, 2024), https://perma.cc/8CUH-DN5A (recommending a statutory right for individuals to sue those who make deepfakes with their likeness); USCO, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability at 32-40 (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/W9VR-TLQP (recommending against changing the law governing the copyrightability of AI-generated works).

      [13] See U.S. House of Rep., Bipartisan House Task Force Report on Artificial Intelligence at 111-136 (Dec. 2024), https://perma.cc/Y69R-DM3D

      [14] See U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, ibidem, p. 22.

      Milan, IT- Local Division (here)

      The order (available here) was issued in the context of merit proceedings brought against Alpinestars by Dainese for infringement of patents EP 4 072 364 and EP 3 498 117, the former of which is also in force in Spain. Following a preliminary objection raised by Alpinestars, the Milan LD dismissed the application asserting its jurisdiction to rule over the alleged infringement taking place outside UPC territory (in the case at issue: in Spain).

      In taking this decision, the Milan LD took into account both the recent CJEU decision in BSH v. Electrolux (Case C-339/22, available here) and the existing body of UPC case law on long-arm jurisdiction of the UPC (cf. Düsseldorf LD decision in Fujifilm v Kodak, issued before BSH, available here; and the Paris LD order in Mul-T-Lock v IMC, issued after BSH, available here).

      Specifically, Judge Zana stated that “the UPC, deemed to be a court of a Member State, in case it is the Court of the domicile of the defendant, has jurisdiction to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents validated in non-UPC Countries (so called long jurisdiction)”, adding that “in case a defendant is domiciled in Italy, the Milan Local Division jurisdiction is “universal”” (cf. paragraphs 12-13 of the order).

      So far the Court of Appeal has yet to issue a conclusive decision on the point.

      Introduzione

      Dall’analisi dei provvedimenti assunti nel 2024 dagli organi dell’Istituto di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria notiamo una preponderanza di ingiunzioni e provvedimenti basati sulla violazione degli articoli 23 e 23bis del Codice di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria della Comunicazione commerciale (“CAP”), che individuano le regole per una corretta diffusione dei messaggi pubblicitari rispettivamente in tema di “Prodotti cosmetici e per l’igiene personale” e di “Integratori alimentari e prodotti dietetici”. In relazione a tali categorie di prodotto, il principio base della normativa pubblicitaria è rappresentato dalla necessità di evitare qualsiasi possibile confusione da parte del pubblico in merito alle proprietà e/o agli effetti di integratori alimentari e dei cosmetici, che non devono in alcun modo essere assimilati o assimilabili a quelli di prodotti medicinali.

      Provvedimenti in tema di prodotti cosmetici e per l’igiene personale

      Nello specifico, l’articolo 23 CAP prescrive che la comunicazione commerciale relativa ai prodotti cosmetici e per l’igiene personale debba essere tale da non indurre i consumatori a confondere detti prodotti con medicinali, presìdi medico-chirurgici, dispositivi medici e trattamenti curativi, né a ritenere che essi abbiano caratteristiche, proprietà e funzioni diverse da quella di essere applicati sulle superfici esterne del corpo umano, sui denti e sulle mucose della bocca, allo scopo esclusivo o prevalente di pulirli, profumarli, modificarne l’aspetto, proteggerli, mantenerli in buono stato e correggere gli odori corporei. In altre parole, dev’essere evitata la costruzione intorno al prodotto cosmetico di una c.d. “aura medicale” che possa determinare un rischio di associazione tra il prodotto e gli ambienti sanitari[1].

      In linea con tale previsione, il Comitato di Controllo si è espresso in merito all’ingannevolezza di due diversi messaggi pubblicitari relativi rispettivamente ad un doccia-shampoo presentato come avente azione antibatterica e antifungina[2] e ad una crema avente un’asserita efficacia terapeutica nel trattamento della dermatite[3]. In entrambi i casi, a detta dell’organo, la costruzione del messaggio era tale da indurre il pubblico in errore sulle caratteristiche e gli effetti del prodotto pubblicizzato, in quanto l’esplicita promessa di un’azione antibatterica e antifungina, nel primo caso, o antiinfiammatoria in relazione ad una situazione patologica, nel secondo, attribuiva al prodotto un’efficacia che lo accreditava impropriamente alla stregua di un trattamento farmacologico, trascendendo appunto gli effetti riferibili invece ad un cosmetico.

      Ciò detto, non si può tuttavia negare che determinati prodotti cosmetici e per l’igiene personale possano avere caratteristiche sussidiarie per la prevenzione di particolari situazioni patologiche. Ciò è esplicitamente riconosciuto dallo stesso articolo 23 CAP, che ammette la liceità di comunicazioni commerciali che mettono in risalto tali caratteristiche, sempre che i prodotti in questione effettivamente impieghino formule e ingredienti specifici riferibili allo scopo dichiarato.

      Provvedimenti in tema di integratori alimentari e prodotti dietetici

      Parallelamente, in tema di integratori alimentari e prodotti dietetici (anche per la prima infanzia), l’articolo 23bis CAP stabilisce che la relativa comunicazione commerciale non debba vantare proprietà non conformi alle particolari caratteristiche dei prodotti o da essi non realmente possedute, né indurre i consumatori in errori nutrizionali, ed evitare in ogni caso richiami a raccomandazioni o attestazioni di tipo medico.

      Sulla scorta di ciò, è stato ritenuto contrario (anche) all’art. 23bis CAP un messaggio pubblicitario volto a promuovere un integratore alimentare attribuendogli un’efficacia di rafforzamento del sistema vascolare e di miglioramento della circolazione, e dunque un’efficacia trascendente gli effetti riconoscibili agli integratori, i quali possono “unicamente limitarsi a mantenere in buono stato una situazione di partenza sana, non potendo costituire in alcun modo un intervento di rafforzamento o miglioramento”[4]. In tale occasione, il Comitato di Controllo ha altresì ribadito che la valutazione circa l’ingannevolezza di un messaggio pubblicitario deve tenere conto non soltanto del contenuto del messaggio in sé, ma anche del pubblico cui esso è destinato “costituito da persone particolarmente sensibili e per questo motivo portate ad una decodifica più allettante ed illusoria delle promesse del facile ottenimento di risultati particolarmente ambiti (quali quelli in campo salutistico), con la conseguente amplificazione dei profili di ingannevolezza”[5].

      In un altro caso recente, il Giurì di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria ha ordinato la cessazione di una comunicazione commerciale concernente un integratore alimentare a base di collagene, rilevando come l’inserzionista non avesse assolto l’onere di dimostrare l’effettiva sussistenza dei pregi ascritti all’integratore oggetto del messaggio, essendosi limitato ad allegare uno studio scientifico non ancora pubblicato e in realtà nemmeno concluso[6]. In tale sede, il Giurì ha chiarito che per un effettivo assolvimento dell’onere probatorio di dimostrare la verità del messaggio pubblicitario (ex art. 6 CAP) è necessaria la presentazione di evidenze basate su studi interamente compiuti e pronti per essere sottoposti all’esame della comunità scientifica e che, al contrario, uno studio in fieri non può rappresentare un’idonea fonte di prova. Il Giurì ha altresì posto l’accento sul ruolo dell’Autorità Europea per la Sicurezza Alimentare (“EFSA”) nella verifica di attendibilità ed innocuità degli integratori alimentari, sottolineando che la principale modalità per gli inserzionisti di assolvere al suddetto onere probatorio coincide proprio con l’approvazione degli integratori pubblicizzati da parte dell’EFSA.

      Una disciplina specifica è poi individuata per i messaggi pubblicitari aventi ad oggetto gli integratori alimentari per il controllo o la riduzione del peso, per i quali  il Regolamento sulla comunicazione commerciale degli integratori alimentari, oltre a vietare la rivendicazione di vantaggi non veritieri o non dimostrati o riferirsi ad approvazioni o avalli scientifici, stabilisce anche che il messaggio pubblicitario non possa presentare i prodotti in questione come “dimagranti”, potendo essi svolgere al massimo una generica azione coadiuvante nell’ambito di diete ipocaloriche, e vieta l’esplicita menzione di condizioni di peso “ideale” o di quantificazioni assolute dei risultati ottenibili in un determinato periodo di tempo, come anche l’enfasi del concetto di dimagrimento come sinonimo di salute. Circa la possibilità di richiamare test o studi scientifici a corredo delle affermazioni contenute nell’annuncio, il Regolamento ammette la citazione circostanziata e veritiera dei risultati specifici di test di tollerabilità o di efficacia effettuati sui prodotti pubblicizzati, a condizione che si tratti di test effettuati secondo criteri e metodologie accettati dalla comunità scientifica. Al contrario, non è consentito l’uso di espressioni quali “clinicamente testato”, oppure “test clinici dimostrano che…”. Alla stregua di tali principi, sono stati ritenuti non conformi messaggi pubblicitari che rivendicavano un’efficacia degli integratori alimentari pubblicizzati su punti localizzati del corpo (ad esempio, su “girovita”, “addome”, “pancia” e “fianchi”[7]), anche mediante l’impiego di espressioni come “Efficacia testata”, “funzionalità dimostrata da test clinico”[8], riportando invece le informazioni essenziali sulla reale natura del prodotto e della sua funzionalità a caratteri minimi in calce al messaggio.

      Conclusioni

      Ciò detto, è riscontrabile un’importante contrazione del numero dei provvedimenti negativi assunti dagli organi dell’Istituto di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria nel corso dell’ultimo ventennio. Questa tendenza potrebbe ascriversi ad una maggiore attenzione degli operatori economici nei confronti della normativa di settore. Parimenti, nell’analisi del trend considerato non può trascurarsi la maggiore sensibilità dello stesso consumatore nei confronti del messaggio pubblicitario: la veridicità del claim, la sua oggettiva verificabilità e più in generale la trasparenza nella comunicazione d’impresa sono elementi centrali nella scelta d’acquisto da parte dell’utilizzatore finale, traducendosi dunque in elementi premiali e di accreditamento sul mercato non più trascurabili dalle imprese ai fini della loro competitività.

      [1] cfr. Giurì di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria, pronuncia n. 25/2024, 19 settembre 2024, Beiersdorf S.p.A. c. L’Oréal Italia S.p.A., par. 47.

      [2] cfr. ingiunzione n. 15/24 del 10 giugno 2024.

      [3] cfr. ingiunzione n. 13/24 del 30 maggio 2024.

      [4] cit. ingiunzione n. 35/24 del 13 novembre 2024.

      [5] cit. ingiunzione n. 35/24 del 13 novembre 2024; cfr. anche ingiunzione n. 17/24 del 19 giugno 2024.

      [6] cfr. pronuncia n. 24/2024, 11 ottobre 2024, Comitato di Controllo c. Biostile et al.

      [7] cfr. ingiunzioni n. 11/24 del 28 maggio 2024 e n. 19/24 del 5 luglio 2024.

      [8] cfr. ancora ingiunzione n. 11/24 del 28 maggio 2024.

      https://link.epo.org/web/about-us/statistics/en-patent-index-2024-at-a-glance.pdf

      L’Ufficio Europeo dei Brevetti (European Patent Office – EPO) ha pubblicato il Patent Index 2024, che analizza l’andamento nel corso dell’ultimo anno delle domande di brevetto presentate nell’Unione Europea.

      Il numero di domande di brevetto depositate presso l’EPO nel 2024 è stato pari a 199.264, mantenendosi su livelli elevati e sostanzialmente stabili rispetto al 2023, quando le domande presentate erano state 199.452, con una minima flessione (- 0,1%) dopo tre anni di consistente crescita.

      La situazione dell’Italia

      All’interno di questo quadro, l’Italia ha momentaneamente arrestato il trend di crescita che durava da diversi anni, registrando una contrazione del 4,5% del numero di domande depositate all’EPO (passate dalle 5.053 domande del 2023 alle 4.853 del 2024). Si tratta di un dato in controtendenza rispetto alla media europea (+ 0,3%), in cui l’incremento è stato sostenuto da Irlanda (+ 4,4%), Svizzera (+ 3,1%), Gran Bretagna (+ 3,1%) e Spagna (+ 3%), mentre i due Paesi principali depositari in Europa, Germania (+ 0,4%) e Francia (+ 1,1%), sono rimasti stabili, con minime variazioni rispetto all’anno precedente.

      Nonostante il calo, l’Italia mantiene l’undicesima posizione a livello globale per numero di domande di brevetto depositate all’EPO e la quinta posizione tra i Paesi dell’Unione Europea, preceduta da Germania (25.033 domande), Francia (10.980 domande), Paesi Bassi (7.054 domande) e Svezia (4.936 domande). Inoltre, l’Italia rimane tra i primi Paesi europei in termini di adesione al nuovo sistema di brevetto europeo con effetto unitario avviato nel 2023: con 1.666 domande presentate è dietro solo a Germania (5.284 domande) e Francia (1.893 domande), ma con una percentuale di adesione molto superiore, segno della fiducia delle imprese italiane per il nuovo sistema di protezione. Tutti i dati sono disponibili online qui.

      Il rallentamento della brevettazione dell’Italia incide negativamente anche su un altro indicatore che già la vedeva faticare negli anni precedenti, ossia il numero di domande di brevetto per milione di abitanti. In questa statistica (disponibile online qui), l’Italia si ferma a circa 82 domande per milione di abitanti, con un tasso inferiore a quello della maggior parte dei paesi europei e ben lontana da quello della Svizzera (circa 1.140 domande per milione di abitanti), che conferma il proprio primato a livello europeo e globale.

      I settori tecnologici trainanti

      Nel 2024 il settore leader delle domande di brevetto presentate all’EPO (16.815 domande e + 3,3% rispetto al 2023) è stato per la prima volta quello della tecnologia informatica, spinto dalle crescenti invenzioni relative all’intelligenza artificiale ed al machine learning. Il comparto con l’incremento più marcato è stato quello delle macchine elettriche, apparecchi ed energia (16.142 domande presentate e + 8,9% rispetto al 2023), grazie soprattutto alle innovazioni nelle batterie e nelle tecnologie di energia pulita. A seguire, i settori maggiormente cresciuti rispetto al 2023 sono stati quelli delle biotecnologie (+ 5,4%) e dei trasporti (+ 3,5%).

      Quest’ultimo è anche il settore in cui l’Italia ha presentato il maggior numero di domande di brevetto (449), verosimilmente per le innovazioni riguardanti le nuove tecnologie di mobilità elettrica. Subito dopo si collocano il settore dell’Handling (439 domande), che comprende anche le tecnologie di imballaggio, nastri trasportatori e carrelli elevatori, il settore delle macchine speciali (331 domande), che copre una vasta gamma di tecnologie tra cui macchine utensili per diverse industrie e stampa 3D, ed il settore delle tecnologie mediche (285 domande). Il comparto in cui in Italia si è registrata la crescita più significativa delle domande di brevetto rispetto al 2023 è quello di motori, pompe e turbine (+ 28,6%), sebbene con numeri ancora contenuti (144 domande).

      Questi dati trovano riscontro in quelli relativi alle aziende italiane con il maggior numero di domande di brevetto depositate nel 2024: tra le prime cinque si confermano Coesia S.p.A. (167 domande depositate), Ferrari S.p.A. (136 domande depositate), Iveco Group (55 domande depositate) e Pirelli & C. S.p.A. (49 domande depositate) e si registra la new entry di Leonardo S.p.A. (49 domande depositate). L’EPO rende disponibili sul proprio sito internet i dati aggiornati sulle dieci aziende italiane con il maggior numero di domande di brevetto depositate all’EPO nel 2024.

      Il ruolo del nuovo sistema

      Dopo un decennio di grande crescita nella brevettazione, il rallentamento del 2024 riporta l’Italia ai livelli del 2022, con un tasso di brevettazione ancora molto basso in Europa in relazione al numero di abitanti, espressione delle mediamente ridotte dimensioni delle imprese che compongono il nostro tessuto industriale.

      Tuttavia, l’ampio ricorso al brevetto europeo ad effetto unitario conferma la crescente consapevolezza delle nostre imprese innovatrici dei nuovi strumenti di tutela oggi disponibili a seguito dell’entrata in vigore del Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti, che dovrebbero nel medio periodo condurre ad un nuovo incremento della brevettazione vista la crescente rilevanza strategica che la protezione brevettuale viene a rivestire nel nuovo sistema.

      In January 2025, the European Patent Office (EPO) published two important studies: “Intellectual Property Rights and Firm Performance in the EU” and “Mapping Investors for European Innovators”. These reports provide comprehensive insights into the interplay between intellectual property rights (IPRs), firm performance and the investment landscape for European start-ups.

      Intellectual Property Rights and Firm Performance in the EU[1]

      This joint study by the EPO and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) analyses the performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and large firms in the European Union in terms of their ownership and use (which can also be declined in terms of strategic exploitation) of patents, trademarks and designs.

      The study shows that larger firms tend to invest more capital in their IP portfolio, especially when developing more costly IPRs, namely patents. In particular, 49% of large firms own at least one type of IP right, as opposed to SMEs, which fall short just below 10%. These percentages plummet when taking solely into account patent and design ownership, as only 1% of SMEs own these kind of assets compared to large firms that stand north of 10%.

      Moreover, it confirms a strong positive correlation between a firm’s ownership of different types of IPR and its economic performance. Data shows that IPR-owning firms generate, on average, higher revenues per employee, create more jobs and pay higher wages than their counterparts without an IP portfolio. Patent ownership shows the strongest link to firm performance, with about 29% higher revenue per employee and 43% higher wages per employee compared to non-IPR owning firms (data referred to period 2019-2022).

      While these findings may seem unsurprising to many, they underscore the critical role of IPRs in enhancing firm performance, particularly for SMEs aiming to scale and compete in the global market against more structured entities. Notably, in fact, IPR-owning SMEs show a significant increase in revenue per employee (+ 44%) than their counterparts, scaling up to 51% higher revenues when their IP portfolio combines patents, trademarks and designs.

      Mapping Investors for European Innovators[2]

      The second study, published on 16 January 2025 by the EPO, focuses on identifying investors who are crucial for the successful commercialisation of cutting-edge innovations. It sheds light on investment patterns, funding gaps, and the role of both public and private investors in supporting innovation across the EU.  

      Start-ups often face financial challenges during the innovation process. A shortage of investments in key technologies and innovation markets poses a significant obstacle to the development of European companies, especially when facing other non-EU competitors. External investors, both private and public, are therefore essential for a start-up’s success and play a crucial role in a company’s ability to innovate and invent.

      The study aims at helping inventive start-ups find investors by introducing the Technology Investor Score (TIS), a novel metric which represents the proportion of companies that have filed patent applications in an investor’s portfolio. Investors with a higher TIS score are in principle better equipped to support innovative companies.

      For example, when comparing the TIS scores of private European investor networks with their US counterparts, it becomes apparent that EU start-ups face a significant lack of late-stage private funding[3] (which is particularly important for patent-oriented companies, as this is the time when they need substantial investments in order to prepare inventions for market entry). On the contrary, European start-ups heavily rely on public investors – such as Horizon Europe and other national investing initiatives –, especially in relation to basic research, which is mostly financed by universities and government agencies.

      To address these challenges, the EPO has updated the Deep Tech Finder[4] (a freely accessible digital tool) to help companies identify the most suitable investors based on criteria such as growth stage, country and technical field. This initiative aims to make it easier for innovative European start-ups to access the funding they need to grow and compete globally.

      [1] Full study is available here: https://link.epo.org/web/publications/studies/en-ipr-performance-study.pdf

      [2] Full study is available here: https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/news/bridging-gap-mapping-investors-strengthen-europes-innovation-ecosystem

      [3] Of the top 100 private investors in Europe, 62% focus on early-stage funding, while only 22% specialise in later-stage funding. In contrast, in the US, 98 of the top 100 investors are private, with more than half focusing on late-stage funding, reflecting stronger private support for scaling high-tech companies.

      [4] See https://datavisualisation.apps.epo.org/datav/public/dashboard-frontend/host_epoorg.html#/explore?dataSet=1

      Per l’agricoltura italiana il 2024 è stato un anno da record. È quanto emerge dai dati Istat sull’andamento economico del settore agricolo per l’anno appena conclusosi.

      È italiano il primato in UE, per valore aggiunto in agricoltura. Con i suoi 42,4 miliardi di euro di valore aggiunto, l’Italia sorpassa la Spagna che registra 39,5 miliardi, la Francia con 35,1 miliardi e la Germania che si ferma a 31,9 miliardi.

      Nel 2024 i numeri dell’Italia nel settore agricolo sono aumentati anche in termini produttivi (+1,4%). A crescere sono, soprattutto, i volumi prodotti nelle coltivazioni (+1,5%) e nel comparto zootecnico (+0,6%). In particolare, l’annata è stata molto favorevole per frutta (+5,4%), ortaggi freschi (+3,8%) e vino (+3,5%). Trend in crescita anche per il reddito medio degli agricoltori che è aumentato del 12,5% nel corso del 2024 e per le attività secondarie (+5,2%).

      Le chiavi del successo dell’agricoltura italiana risiedono in un mix di diversi fattori, tra cui spiccano l’eccellenza produttiva, la sostenibilità e la diversificazione, intesa come capacità di adattarsi ai cambiamenti ed innovazione.

      Il Bel Paese è, infatti, innanzitutto, rinomato per la qualità dei suoi prodotti agroalimentari e vitivinicoli, molti dei quali registrati e protetti con certificazioni come DOP, IGP e BIO, che rappresentano una percentuale significativa dell’export complessivo del settore agroalimentare italiano.  

      Inoltre, l’agricoltura italiana, negli ultimi anni, si distingue sempre più per aver ridotto le emissioni di anidride carbonica e l’uso di pesticidi, qualificandosi come tra le più sostenibili in Europa.

      A tale ulteriore traguardo contribuisce il fatto che aumenta sempre di più la superficie agricola in Italia destinata a biologico, che già nel 2023 ha raggiunto il record storico di 2,3 milioni di ettari, con oltre 82.000 produttori agricoli, il numero più elevato tra i Paesi dell’Unione Europea. La costruzione di filiere biologiche nazionali è favorita anche dall’obbligo di inserire in etichetta l’origine della materia prima e la volontà, tanto da parte dell’industria che dei consumatori, di valorizzare prodotti c.d. a ‘km zero’.

      Terza chiave del successo dell’agrifood italiano è la sua capacità di adattarsi al cambiamento, diversificare e innovare, ampliando l’offerta, investendo in altri canali di distribuzione, come l’e-commerce, in tecniche innovative di produzione, lavorazione e diffusione delle materie; e a prendere sempre più piede in agricoltura sarà anche l’intelligenza artificiale. È stato previsto, infatti, che entro il 2030 un’azienda agricola italiana su cinque adotterà strumenti di gestione direttamente basati sull’AI (intelligenza artificiale), e già si parla di agricoltura 5.0. A riportarlo è una recente analisi di Coldiretti, presentata a Roma durante il Forum internazionale dell’agricoltura e dell’alimentazione lo scorso novembre.

      L’innovazione è la strada anche per rispondere alle esigenze particolari dei nostri territori: da qui il via libera alle autorizzazioni per l’uso dei droni per l’impiego efficiente di prodotti fitosanitari (soprattutto nell’agricoltura di montagna o eroica) e alla sperimentazione delle TEA (Tecnologie di Evoluzione Assistita), biotecnologie, sviluppate a partire dagli anni 2000, con lo scopo di selezionare varietà vegetali più resilienti ai cambiamenti climatici e resistenti alle malattie e ai parassiti e con un minore impatto ambientale.  

      Il 2024 rappresenta un anno fondamentale per l’agricoltura italiana, che, grazie alla combinazione di innovazione, sostenibilità e qualità, continua a distinguersi in Europa. L’Italia si conferma leader nel settore agroalimentare, con un progresso costante in termini di produzione, reddito e sostenibilità. La capacità di adattarsi ai cambiamenti, investire in nuove tecnologie e promuovere filiere biologiche, fa dell’agricoltura italiana un modello di eccellenza a livello globale. Guardando al futuro, la strada è tracciata: l’innovazione tecnologica e l’impegno per l’ambiente saranno le chiavi per consolidare e accrescere questo successo nei prossimi anni.

      “Théâtre d’Opéra Spatial“

      On September 26th, 2024, AI artist Jason Allen filed an appeal at the U.S. District Court of Colorado requesting the reversal of a US Copyright Office (‘USCO’) decision to deny copyright protection for his artwork ‘Théâtre d’Opéra Spatial’.

      Mr. Allen’s first attempt to secure copyright protection for his work dates back to September 2022, when he filed a registration application with the USCO. Though, in his first application, Mr. Allen did not disclose that his work was created using an AI system (specifically, Midjourney), the USCO was aware of his work and of the involvement of AI since it had garnered national attention in August 2022 for being the first ‘AI-generated’ (or, according to Mr. Allen ‘AI-assisted’) image to win the Colorado State Fair’s annual fine art competition[1].

      The decision of the USCO

      Following several correspondence exchange with Mr. Allen, the USCO issued its final decision in September 2023. With said decision, the USCO Review Board denied copyright registration for Mr. Allen’s award-winning artwork since it lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim and, more in depth, ‘it contains more than a de minimis amount of AI-generated content, which must be disclaimed in an application for registration’[2].

      In a nutshell, in the USCO’ reasoning[3], if all the traditional elements of authorship, i.e. conception and execution, are generated by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the USCO cannot register it[4] . If, however, a work containing AI-generated material also contains sufficient human authorship to support a claim to copyright, then the USCO will register the human’s contributions only. In such cases, the applicant must disclose AI-generated content that is more than de minimis. Said disclosure requirement was not met by Mr Allen, who sought to register the entire work and refused to disclaim the portions attributable to AI, hence his work was denied registration.

      Mr Allen’s appeal

      In the appeal filed last month before the Colorado District Court, Mr. Allen argued that, in finding that his work lacks human authorship, the Office ignored the essential element of human creativity required to create an artwork using Midjourney and ignored the fundamental principle that copyright is meant to be granted to expressions of ideas originating from a human mind[5].

      According to Mr. Allen, using Midjourney require the creator to carefully craft prompts to achieve the desired results. In describing the origin of the artwork, Mr. Allen clarifies that the idea behind the artwork was conceived by him, who provided the initial input to the machine, i.e. the image of women in Victorian dresses wearing space helmets. He then selected the colors, the style, the era of the artwork, the setting[6] and arranged all the other elements in the image in order to convey his idea in the artwork.

      The final result stems from 624 interactions between Mr. Allen and Midjourney, through which the artist provided new instructions from time to time, based on the AI’s response. Once achieved the desired output, Mr. Allen upscaled and further modified the image for clarity and detail and added few missing elements.

      In other words, according to Mr. Allen the work was not created by Midjourney merely through inputting a few prompts or pressing a button. The prompt serves as the initial creative input, embodying the human’s original idea and vision for the artwork and the AI system only functions as a tool to assist the human creator in the actualization of his/her creative idea[7].

      The underlying AI-generated work merely constitutes raw material, which Mr. Allen has transformed through his artistic contributions. Said contributions are on par with that expressed by other types of artists in artworks deemed capable of copyright protection by the USCO. Therefore, regardless of whether the underlying AI-generated work is eligible for copyright registration, the entire work in the form submitted to the copyright office should be accepted for registration.

      In this regard, Mr. Allen argues that the statutory language of the U.S. Copyright Act supports the notion that AI-assisted artworks with substantial human creative input can indeed be eligible for copyright protection[8] and that the requirements of human conception and execution requested by the USCO are met in his artwork, even if they are declined differently than in traditionally human-created artworks before generative AI came into play.

      Finally, Mr. Allen stated that, by refusing to register contents generated via Midjourney and other generative AI systems, the USCO has failed to remain technologically neutral and that denial of copyright protection for the output of such tools would result in a void of ownership: ‘In many instances, a Copyright Examiner may not even be able to distinguish an artwork that used AI tools to assist in the creation from one which does not use any computerized tools, thus making the review process entirely arbitrary’[9].

      The USCO denial, according to Mr. Allen, is also causing him substantial damages, since, in the months following the final USCO decision, consistent infringements of his work has jeopardize Mr. Allen’s ability to monetize his artistic creation[10].

      Generative AI and copyright protection (brief considerations)

      The approach adopted by the USCO in Mr. Allen’s case is not novel and, on closer inspection, it is highly common in cases involving applications for copyright registration of artworks generated employing AI[11]. However, this approach, whereby AI-generated works should not be granted protection under copyright law as it was originally conceived to protect human creativity, seems tautological: at the time when copyright protection arose, human creativity was the only conceivable form of creativity, whereas the idea that a machine could create artworks independently (or with limited human contribution) was unimaginable.

      Also, the approach whereby works involving AI should be granted protection or not depending on the level of human intervention detectable in them (shown by the USCO in the case at hand) is indeed consistent with traditional concepts of copyright law. However, the same is hardly applicable in practice, as it is based on uncertain parameters (likewise the minimum human contribution to support a copyright claim) that harbour excessive discretion, as argued by Mr. Allen.

      This approach is also not consistent with the current technical landscape, whereby AI systems become increasingly autonomous and sophisticated every day, requiring, as a result, less and less human involvement. Nevertheless, applications for registration of AI-generated works are steadily increasing at copyright offices worldwide, calling for a re-thinking of some traditional copyright concepts, so to adapt them to technological evolution[12].

      Finally, the approach outlined above, although with the stated purpose of safeguarding human creativity as the bedrock of copyright, ultimately implies the fall of the work into the public domain thus preventing the human artist from exploiting the artwork (as Mr. Allen’s case), whereas works created without employing AI, yet with a degree of creativity equal to pressing a button, would be unquestionably protectable under current USCO case law[13].

      The granting of IP protection to AI-generated works does not imply, per se, the awarding of any rights to a machine. Based on the economic rationale of copyright, the incentive provided by IP rights shall be granted to those who are in a position to invest in artificial innovation (thus, clearly, human beings), so as not to hinder, rather to encourage overall progress and follow the path indicated by the European Directives on copyright, most recently the ‘Copyright Directive’[14].

      The decision of the Colorado District Court in the case of Mr. Allen is forthcoming. The same may either follow the USCO’s reasoning and approach, as done by the Columbia District Court in Mr. Thaler’s case[15], or favouring a more progressive and realistic approach, as other courts have done in some recent landmark rulings[16].

      [1] Contrary to his registration application to the USCO, in his application to the Colorado State Fair’s competition Mr. Allen disclosed that the work had been created using Midjourney (since he was competing in the digital art category). However, none of the jurors was aware that Midjourney is a generative AI system.

      [2] See U.S. Copyright Office Review Board, ‘Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register Théâtre D’opéra Spatial (SR # 1-11743923581; Correspondence ID: 1-5T5320R)’ of 5th September 2023, paragraph III, pg. 3, available at the following link: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/Theatre-Dopera-Spatial.pdf .

      [3] Following the reasoning already provided in a public guidance on registration of works created by a generative AI systems issued by the USCO in March 2023 (see Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190, 16,192, 16th March 2023, at the following link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence ).

      [4] This conclusion is drawn by the USCO based on the fact that the U.S. Copyright Act protects, and the USCO registers, ‘original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression’ (see 17 U.S.C. § 102a). Courts have interpreted the statutory phrase ‘works of authorship’ to require human creation of the work, stating that ‘human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright’ (see the decision issued by the U.S. District Court of Columbia in Thaler v. Perlmutter case, Civil Action No. 22-1564 on 18th August 2023, pg. 8). For this reason, courts have uniformly rejected attempts to protect the creations of non-humans through copyright (see U.S. Copyright Office Review Board, ibidem, paragraph III(A), pg. 3).

      [5] See Plaintiff’s complaint and request for declaratory relief and demand for jury trial (‘Plaintiff’s complaint’), Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-2665, filed on 26th September 2024 at the U.S. District Court of Colorado by Tamara Pester, Esq. on behalf of Mr. Allen in the Allen v. Perlmutter case, paragraph 69, available at the following link: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gdvzkrrmapw/AI%20COPYRIGHT%20REGISTRATION%20appeal.pdf .

      [6] I.e. a ‘grand theater, with an audience watching intently, overlooking a large circular window through which the vast expanse of the outer world is visible, adding an otherworldly ambiance to the performance’ (see Plaintiff’s complaint paragraph 16).

      [7] In this regard, in the Plaintiff’s complaint Mr. Allen compares the creative process employing generative AI to photography: ‘In a literal sense, the camera captures and develops the photograph, yet no one would dispute the photographer’s authorship. Similarly, Mr. Allen conceived of the image, developed the prompt, and made adjustments to refine the output, thereby ensuring the final image reflects his mental vision. The AI system, much like a camera, is a tool through which the artist’s creativity is realized in visual form.’ (see Plaintiff’s complaint, ibidem, paragraph 80). When photography first gained popularity, critics argued that it lacked skill and artistry, yet it has since become a highly respected and valued art form. According to Mr. Allen AI-assisted art holds the potential to do the same and this evolution should be embraced as a positive development in the creative landscape (see Plaintiff’s complaint, ibidem, paragraph 73).

      [8] See 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).

      [9] See Plaintiff’s complaint, ibidem, paragraph 16.

      [10] The following link provides an example of a canvas featuring Mr. Allen’s artwork available for sale on Etsy for $18.65: https://www.etsy.com/listing/1358054636/theatre-dopera-spatial-canvas-art-print .

      [11] E.g. in the case of Mr. Thaler, who in February 2022 had his application for copyright registration of the work ‘A Recent Entrance to Paradise’ rejected (see USCO, Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register A Recent Entrance to Paradise (Correspondence ID 1-3ZPC6C3; SR # 1-7100387071) of 14th February 2022). Unlike Mr. Allen, Mr. Thaler claimed that the AI itself conceived of and created the work independently, with him seeking copyright protection on that AI-generated work based on various legal theories under which a copyright in the AI’s work would transfer to him, e.g., as inventor of the AI-author (called ‘Creativity Machine’) or as the hardware’s owner.

      [12] In line with the ‘Constitutional mandate to promote the of science and the useful arts (see Plaintiff’s complaint paragraph 96).

      [13] ‘Courts have found it is now settled beyond question that practically anything novel can be copyrighted, even if there is only a faint trace of originality […]. All that is needed to satisfy both the Constitution and the statute is that the ‘author’ contributed something more than a ‘merely trivial’ variation, something recognizably his own. […] No matter how poor artistically the ‘author’s addition, it is enough if it be his own’ (see Plaintiff’s complaint paragraph 46 and the case law mentioned thereby).

      [14] Directive (EU) 2019/790 of 17 April 2019.

      [15] See U.S. District Court of Columbia, ibidem, where the Court upheld the USCO’s decision and denied copyright protection to Mr. Thaler’s artwork, as described above.

      [16] In November 2019, the Court of Nanshan (China) granted copyright protection to a newspaper article written by a robot called ‘Dreamwriter’, owned by the company Shenzhen Tencent, and ordered the other party, Shanghai Yingxun, to pay damages for copyright infringement. In this case, the Nanshan Court found that the AI-written article had a thoughtful structure, clear logic and a certain degree of originality, which met all the requirements for copyright protection. In this work, the human hand was identified as that of the team of Shenzhen Tencent engineers who: designed the operation of the algorithm; selected and entered the data into the algorithm; set the goal (see Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court, Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. vs. Shanghai Yingmou Technology Co., Ltd., available at this link: http://www.ecns.cn/news/2020-01-09/detail-ifzsqcrm6562963.shtml).

      Düsseldorf – UPC Local Division (https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/court/locations)

      The order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 31 October 2024 granting the preliminary injunction requested by Valeo Electrification against some entities of the Magna group (available here) may seem one of the several ordinary PIs issued to date by the UPC, but actually includes interesting statements by the Court on the need to apply the general principle of proportionality when issuing provisional measures that may cause significant damages to the enjoined defendant.

      The case at hand concerned the alleged infringement of EP 3 320 602 (a parallel case was also brought on EP 3 320 604, decided with an almost identical PI order, available here). The applicant belongs to Valeo Group and is a manufacturer of transmissions and transmission components. Defendants belong to the Magna Group and are also manufacturers of transmissions and transmission components. The parties had recently become competitors in the field of manufacturing and distributing mild hybrid technologies for motor vehicles, specifically electric motor generators.

      The order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed in detail all issues typically dealt with when assessing a request for provisional measures, concluding that the patent in suit is more likely than not to be found valid, is more likely than not to be infringed by the defendants, and there was no delay in seeking relief by the applicant.

      The Court lastly addressed the balancing of interests of the parties against each other, taking into account in particular – as per R. 211.3 RoP – any harm that might be caused to one of the parties by the granting of provisional measures or the dismissal of the application. The Court reasoned that under circumstances the interests of the Applicant outweigh those of the Defendants and is therefore justified to grant a preliminary injunction. However, the interests of the defendants still make it necessary in the case at hand, as a “very special” exception, to limit the scope of the preliminary injunction.

      Defendants have indeed explained in detail that they would suffer enormous damages in the event of an injunction, since the car manufacturers they supply the infringing embodiment to (including in particular BMW) would not be able to easily replace it with other non-infringing components, including Magna’s or Valeo’s, due to the necessary modifications of the entire mechanical design and the lack of regulatory approval. Car manufacturers would thus be forced to interrupt production and would claim compensation for the resulting damage. The Court also noted that threatened damages in the event of a preliminary injunction covering the defendants’ supply obligations to BMW would be so high that an order to the applicant to provide security would not be a suitable instrument to adopt, as the amount of security required would be so high that the injunction would be practically impossible to enforce for the applicant.

      All considered, the Court thus concluded that “The present order takes account of the potentially significant harm identified by the Defendants as being caused by a preliminary injunction by allowing Defendants to fulfil their existing obligations to their customer BMW notwithstanding the preliminary injunction. This is a narrowly defined exception which takes account of the particularities of the automotive industry supply market in general and the harm specifically identified in the present case in the event of an unlimited preliminary injunction. The order preserves the status quo while ensuring at the same time that the Defendants cannot expand their business activities in relation to the challenged embodiments. In particular, the preliminary injunction prohibits the Defendants from offering or distributing the challenged embodiments I and II to other customers than BMW. An increase in the quantities supplied to BMW beyond the existing contracts is also excluded. In order to minimise the disadvantages for the Applicant associated with such a strictly limited possibility of further use, Defendants are obliged to provide security in return” (emphasis added).

      The landmark order by the Düsseldorf Local Division marks one of the very first cases where the UPC had the chance to apply the principle of proportionality weighing up the interests of both parties, as provided for under R. 211.3 RoP. We can expect that with the increase of cases and PI requests put forward to the UPC, addressing complex factual constellations, the Court will more and more often find itself carrying out a careful balancing exercise between the conflicting interests of the parties.

      A further step will then be assessing whether and how the Court can take into account the interests of third parties as well (e.g. the interests of patients in pharma cases), following in the footsteps of existing national case law that had already established such principle (see e.g. the various decisions by Italian courts that issued PIs tailored to safeguard the interests of third parties in life sciences cases, carving out existing supplies to health authorities or setting a grace period for the injunction to take effect – which we commented on here and here).