Cross-Jurisdiction Patent Enforcement In Neuro-Ai Hybrid Systems.
Cross-Jurisdiction Patent Enforcement in Neuro-AI Hybrid Systems
Overview:
Patent enforcement is fundamentally territorial: a patent granted in one country can only be enforced in that country. For Neuro-AI hybrid systems—e.g., brain-computer interfaces, neural sensors integrated with AI algorithms—this creates unique challenges because these technologies are often global, involving hardware, software, and biological data. Enforcement may require lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, and courts often interpret patent scope differently across borders.
Key Principles
Territoriality: A patent is enforceable only in the country where it is granted. Importing or using a product in another country may create infringement issues, but local laws govern enforcement.
Parallel Proceedings: Patent holders often litigate in multiple countries for the same invention. Conflicting decisions can arise, creating uncertainty.
Functional Requirement: Some jurisdictions enforce patents only if the patented invention is performing its intended function in the accused product.
Patent Eligibility Standards: Software, algorithms, or diagnostic methods may be patentable in some countries but considered abstract or unpatentable in others.
Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs) & FRAND: Global technologies often involve SEPs, where courts in different countries may assert jurisdiction over licensing terms.
Key Cases
1) Monsanto v. Cefetra (European Court of Justice, 2010)
Facts: Monsanto held a European patent on genetically modified soybeans resistant to herbicide. Soybeans were grown in Argentina (no patent protection) and imported to the EU. Monsanto sued importers in the Netherlands.
Issue: Can importing soy products containing inactive patented DNA sequences infringe the European patent?
Decision: The ECJ ruled that patent infringement only occurs if the patented genetic material performs its function. Imported soy meal with inactive DNA did not infringe.
Relevance: For Neuro-AI systems, courts may require the patented function (e.g., AI algorithm or neural interface) to be actively used to enforce the patent.
2) BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux (CJEU, 2025)
Facts: BSH sued Electrolux for infringement of a European patent across multiple EU countries. Electrolux challenged the jurisdiction of the Swedish courts.
Decision: The court ruled that courts in the defendant’s domicile can hear claims about parts of a European patent even in other member states.
Relevance: Shows the potential for pan-European enforcement of complex technologies like Neuro-AI systems, reducing litigation fragmentation.
3) Nokia v. Oppo (China, 2022)
Facts: Nokia sued Oppo over standard-essential patents (SEPs) in China.
Decision: Chinese courts confirmed they could rule on licensing conditions affecting global SEP rates.
Relevance: Demonstrates how a national court can influence global licensing, relevant for AI-driven Neuro-AI technologies that may rely on standard protocols for sensors or data formats.
4) Nokia v. Oppo (UK, 2022)
Facts: Nokia filed a SEP infringement suit in the UK to establish FRAND licensing terms for global use.
Decision: UK courts can determine FRAND terms and grant remedies like injunctions or damages.
Relevance: Illustrates strategic use of one jurisdiction to set licensing standards globally—important for Neuro-AI systems using patented AI models or neural interfaces.
5) Samsung v. Huawei (2016–2018)
Facts: Disputes over mobile SEPs occurred in multiple countries (US, China, EU). Chinese courts issued anti-suit injunctions to prevent Samsung from pursuing litigation elsewhere.
Decision: Courts can issue anti-suit injunctions to manage conflicting litigation.
Relevance: Multi-jurisdiction enforcement may require coordination; parallel lawsuits can affect strategy for Neuro-AI hardware/software companies.
6) Ariosa v. Sequenom (US, 2015)
Facts: Sequenom patented a prenatal diagnostic method using fetal DNA. The patent was challenged as not patentable.
Decision: Federal Circuit invalidated the patent under subject-matter eligibility rules.
Relevance: Highlights how US eligibility rules (for biotech or algorithmic inventions) can impact global enforcement strategy.
7) Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (US, 2014)
Facts: Alice’s patent covered computer-implemented methods for financial transactions.
Decision: Supreme Court ruled the patent invalid as an abstract idea, establishing the Alice test for software patents.
Relevance: For Neuro-AI, patents involving AI algorithms must meet eligibility standards; invalid patents in one jurisdiction may hinder enforcement elsewhere.
Challenges for Neuro-AI Hybrid Systems
Hardware + Software Combination: Some countries treat algorithms differently; patents may be enforceable in hardware implementations but not software alone.
Cross-Border Data Use: Neural data or AI model training may involve multiple countries; infringement depends on where the data is processed or used.
Parallel Litigation: Conflicting judgments across jurisdictions are common, requiring careful coordination of strategy.
FRAND/SEPs: AI and neural devices may involve standardized protocols; national courts can impact global licensing rates.
Takeaways
Enforce patents in every jurisdiction where infringement may occur.
Ensure functional implementation is clear; courts may require the patented feature to actively work.
Coordinate international litigation strategy to avoid contradictory outcomes.
Consider patent eligibility for algorithms, software, and biotech aspects.
Use strategic courts to influence global licensing or FRAND agreements.
RELATED Blog
comments