IPR
Topic 114 Emerging Tech AI Cases
Topic 114 — Landmark Emerging Tech and AI Cases
Emerging technology and AI present unprecedented IP challenges. The Indian framework operates through interpretation of existing statutes — Patents Act Section 3(k) for software, Copyright Act for AI-generated content, Trade Marks Act for AI-related branding, IT Act for digital platforms — alongside emerging guidance like CRI Guidelines 2025 (29 July 2025). The watershed pending case is ANI MEDIA v. OPENAI (CS(COMM) 1028/2024, Del HC) — judgment reserved 2025 — addressing AI training on copyrighted material. STEPHEN THALER v. COPYRIGHT OFFICE (Del HC 2025) addresses AI authorship. ANIL KAPOOR v. SIMPLY LIFE (Del HC 2023) — personality rights against generative AI. International cases influence Indian framework: THALER v. VIDAL (US 2022) and THALER v. COMPTROLLER-GENERAL (UK SC 2023) — AI inventorship rejected globally. Bartz v. Anthropic (US 2024) — AI training litigation. Hermès v. Rothschild (US 2023) — NFT MetaBirkins case ($133K damages). BAYC v. Ryder Ripps (US 2023) — NFT trademark dispute ($1.6M+). For software/CRI patents: FERID ALLANI (2019:DHC:6944) technical effect test; MICROSOFT (2023:DHC:3342); OPENTV (2023:DHC:3305) absolute business method bar; PRIYA RANDOLPH (Madras HC 2023) blockchain framework. For SEPs: TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET v. LAVA (Del HC 2024:DHC:2698) watershed substantial damages. AB INITIO TECHNOLOGY v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER (2024:DHC:5708) blockchain technical effect. COMVIVA TECHNOLOGIES v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER (2024) refined framework. ERICSSON v. LAVA (2024:DHC:2698) seven-step novelty. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (SC 2021) software royalty taxation. This topic walks through the cutting-edge IP framework — AI training, AI authorship, NFTs, blockchain, IoT, software patents, and emerging tech enforcement.
1. AI Training and Copyright
📖 Ani Media (P) Ltd. v. Open AI Inc. & Anr., CS(COMM) 1028/2024 (Del HC) Background — ANI sued OpenAI for using copyrighted news content to train ChatGPT. Status — Judgment reserved 2025. Issues — Multiple intersections: · Copyright: AI training as infringement (Section 14 reproduction). · Privacy: Training data contains personal data (DPDP Act 2023). · Free speech: Section 52 fair dealing analysis. · Cross-border jurisdiction: US-based servers. · International coordination. Significance — PENDING DECISION will shape: · AI training framework in India. · Section 52 fair dealing for AI. · Personal data in training corpus. · Cross-border IP enforcement. · Foundation for future AI cases. |
📖 Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc. (US 2023-2024) Facts — Authors Guild + multiple authors (Grisham, Martin) sued OpenAI for using copyrighted books in AI training. Status — Pending US litigation. Significance — Major US AI copyright litigation; influential for Indian framework. |
📖 Bartz v. Anthropic, et al. (US 2024) Facts — Authors sued Anthropic for using copyrighted books in AI training. Status — Pending US litigation. Significance — Major US AI copyright case; influences Indian framework. |
2. AI Authorship and Inventorship
📖 Stephen Thaler v. Copyright Office, 2025 (Del HC) Background — Thaler's "DABUS" AI system globally rejected as inventor (US, UK, EU). Indian challenge. Holding — Delhi HC (2025): 8-week directive on AI authorship reconsideration. Significance — Indian framework alignment with US/UK rejection. Section 6 Patents Act requires HUMAN INVENTOR. |
📖 Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022) Facts — Thaler sought patent inventorship for "DABUS" AI system. Holding — US Federal Circuit (5 August 2022): Patent applications must list HUMAN INVENTOR. AI cannot be inventor. Significance — Foundational US AI inventorship rejection. Cited by Indian and other jurisdictions. |
📖 Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, [2023] UKSC 49 Facts — Thaler sought UK patent inventorship for "DABUS" AI. Holding — UK Supreme Court (20 December 2023): AI cannot be inventor under UK law. Significance — UK Supreme Court rejection. Aligns with US position. Cited in Indian Stephen Thaler 2025. |
📖 "Raghav" Painting Case, 2020-2021 Reversal Background — In 2020, Indian Copyright Office initially registered "Raghav" — claimed AI-generated artwork — listing AI co-author. Reversal — 2021 reversal: Copyright Office revised position; AI cannot be co-author. Significance — Indian framework requires human authorship. Aligns with Stephen Thaler 2025. |
3. NFTs and Blockchain Cases
📖 Hermès International v. Rothschild ("MetaBirkins"), 2023 (S.D.N.Y.) Facts — Mason Rothschild created "MetaBirkins" NFT collection imitating Hermès Birkin bag designs. Holding — US District Court (S.D.N.Y. 2023): $133,000 damages awarded; NFTs subject to trademark protection; First Amendment limited defense. Significance — Foundational NFT trademark case. Influences Indian framework. |
📖 Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) v. Ryder Ripps, 2023 (US) Facts — Yuga Labs (BAYC creator) sued Ryder Ripps for derivative NFT collection alleged to infringe trademark. Holding — US District Court (2023): $1.6M+ damages; trademark protection extends to NFTs. Significance — Major NFT trademark case; influences Indian framework. |
📖 Nike, Inc. v. StockX LLC, 2022 (S.D.N.Y.) Facts — Nike sued StockX for NFT collection of Nike sneakers. Holding — Pending; framework for NFT trademark protection. Significance — Brand protection in NFT marketplace. |
📖 Priya Randolph v. Deputy Controller, 2023 (Madras HC) Facts — Patent application related to blockchain-based system. Patent Office rejected under Section 3(k). Holding — Madras HC: Blockchain patents possible if technical effect demonstrated; remanded for fresh consideration. Significance — Foundational for blockchain patent jurisprudence in India. |
📖 Ab Initio Technology LLC v. Assistant Controller, 2024:DHC:5708 Facts — Ab Initio sought patent for blockchain technology. Holding — Delhi HC: Blockchain patents — technical effect test applied; remanded for fresh consideration. Significance — Refined blockchain patent framework. |
4. Software / CRI Patent Cases
📖 Ferid Allani v. Union of India, 2019:DHC:6944 Facts — Allani sought patent on software-based methodology. Patent Office rejected under Section 3(k). Holding — Delhi HC: Established TECHNICAL EFFECT TEST: · Pure software (computer programs per se) NOT patentable. · Software with TECHNICAL EFFECT IS patentable. · Hardware-software combinations may be patentable. Significance — Foundational test for software patent eligibility. Affects AI/ML, IoT, software-on-chip, network protocol patents. |
📖 Microsoft Technology Licensing v. Asst. Controller of Patents, 2023:DHC:3342 Facts — Microsoft software methodology patent application. Holding — Delhi HC: Reaffirmed Ferid Allani technical effect test; remanded for fresh consideration. Significance — Continues elaboration of Section 3(k) interpretation. |
📖 OpenTV Inc. v. Controller of Patents, 2023:DHC:3305 Facts — OpenTV interactive TV business method patent application. Holding — Delhi HC: ABSOLUTE BAR on business method patents under Section 3(k). Significance — Distinguishes pure business methods (excluded) from technical inventions. |
📖 Raytheon Co. v. Controller of Patents, 2023:DHC:6673 Facts — Raytheon defense technology patent. Holding — Delhi HC: Defense technology patents within Section 3(k) framework. Significance — Defense industry IP framework. |
📖 Comviva Technologies v. Assistant Controller, 2024 (Del HC) Facts — Comviva mobile financial services patent. Holding — Delhi HC: Refined CRI Guidelines framework; technical effect demonstrated. Significance — Modern fintech IP framework. |
📖 Google LLC v. Controller of Patents, 2 April 2024 (Del HC) Facts — Google patent application. Holding — Delhi HC: CRI framework; modern application. Significance — Continues software/AI patent jurisprudence. |
📖 Blackberry Ltd. v. Controller of Patents, 2024:DHC:6571 Facts — Blackberry patent application. Holding — Delhi HC: CRI framework continued application. Significance — Mobile communications IP framework. |
5. SEP/FRAND Cases
📖 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International, 2024:DHC:2698 Facts — Ericsson SEPs vs. Lava handsets. Holding — Delhi HC: Watershed SEP/FRAND framework; substantial damages; seven-step novelty analysis. Significance — WATERSHED Indian SEP litigation. Foundation for future SEP cases. |
6. Personality Rights and AI
📖 Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914 Facts — Anil Kapoor sought protection against misuse of his name, image, likeness — including by generative AI. Holding — Delhi HC: Personality rights protected; copyright + trademark + passing off + Article 21 framework. Significance — LANDMARK personality rights case in AI era. Foundation for future AI personality protection. |
7. CRI Guidelines 2025 — Modern Framework
✅ CRI Guidelines 2025 — Foundation for AI/Software/IoT Patents Computer-Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines 2025: · Notified 29 July 2025 by Indian Patent Office. · Modernise framework for software/AI patent applications. · Three-step test: 1. Identify the invention. 2. Identify the technical contribution. 3. Assess Section 3(k) exclusion. Specifically addresses: · AI-related inventions. · Machine learning algorithms. · IoT applications. · Cloud computing. · Blockchain technology. Aligns with: · Ferid Allani technical effect test. · International best practices. · Modern technology landscape. Distinguishes: · Pure software (Section 3(k) excluded). · Technically-effective software (patentable). May 2025 expert panel + DPIIT 2024 position contributed. |
8. Software Tax + Copyright
📖 Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence v. CIT, AIR 2021 SC 1394; (2022) 3 SCC 321 Background — Software royalty taxation under DTAAs. Holding — Supreme Court: Standard software payments NOT royalty under DTAAs. "Use of copyright" vs "use of copyrighted article" distinction. Significance — LANDMARK royalty taxation. Affected IT industry. |
9. Emerging Tech Categories Summary
Category | Foundational Cases |
|---|---|
AI Training | ANI v. OpenAI 2024 (pending); Authors Guild v. OpenAI; Bartz v. Anthropic. |
AI Authorship/Inventorship | Stephen Thaler 2025; Thaler v. Vidal (US 2022); Thaler v. Comptroller-General (UK SC 2023); "Raghav" 2021 reversal. |
AI Personality Rights | Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life 2023. |
NFT Trademark | Hermès v. Rothschild 2023 ($133K); BAYC v. Ryder Ripps 2023 ($1.6M+); Nike v. StockX 2022. |
Blockchain Patents | Priya Randolph 2023; Ab Initio 2024:DHC:5708. |
Software/CRI Patents | Ferid Allani 2019:DHC:6944; Microsoft 2023; OpenTV 2023; Raytheon 2023; Comviva 2024; Google 2024; Blackberry 2024. |
SEP/FRAND | Telefonaktiebolaget v. Lava 2024:DHC:2698. |
Software Tax | Engineering Analysis 2021. |
CRI Guidelines 2025 | 29 July 2025 — modern framework. |
10. Memory Aid — Quick Recall
✅ Quick Recall — Emerging Tech Cases Tags ANI Media v. OpenAI 2024 (pending) — AI training; judgment reserved 2025. Stephen Thaler v. Copyright Office 2025 — AI authorship rejected. Thaler v. Vidal US 2022; UK SC 2023 — AI inventorship rejected globally. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life 2023 — personality rights against AI. Hermès v. Rothschild 2023 — MetaBirkins NFT $133K. BAYC v. Ryder Ripps 2023 — NFT trademark $1.6M+. Ferid Allani 2019:DHC:6944 — TECHNICAL EFFECT TEST. Telefonaktiebolaget v. Lava 2024:DHC:2698 — WATERSHED SEP. Priya Randolph 2023 — blockchain patents framework. Engineering Analysis 2021 — software not royalty under DTAAs. CRI Guidelines 2025 (29 July 2025) — three-step test. "Raghav" 2021 reversal — AI co-authorship rejected. |
🎯 EXAM POINTERS — TOPIC 114
|