Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 12 No. 09 (2025)
International Multidisciplinary Journal for Research & Development

Articles

HUMAN-TO-MACHINE INNOVATION: CHALLENGES FOR INTERNATIONAL IP LAW

Published 2025-09-17

  • Inoyatov Nodirbek Hayitboy ugli

Inoyatov Nodirbek Hayitboy ugli
Lecturer at the Department of Cyber Law

Abstract

x

Keywords

x

PDF

References

  1. Abbott, R. (2020). Everything is stagnant: Why South Africa’s recognition of AI inventorship is a global turning point. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 15(12), 1004–1011.
  2. Avila, R. (2020). Robots as legal persons: A comparative analysis. AI & Society, 35(4), 1049–1061.
  3. Burylo, Y. (2020). Legal personhood of artificial intelligence systems: To be or not to be. AI & Law Review, 28(2), 145–160.
  4. Chopra, S., & White, L. (2011). Artificial agents and the expanding legal landscape. University of Michigan Press.
  5. EPO. (2020). Decision on DABUS applications (EP 18 275 163, EP 18 275 174).
  6. Gervais, D. (2020). The machine as author. Iowa Law Review, 105(5), 2053–2080.
  7. Igbokwe, V. (2024). Human-to-machine innovation: Does legal personhood and inventorship threshold offer any leeway? World Intellectual Property, 2024(2), 45–68.
  8. Kurki, V. A. J. (2019). A theory of legal personhood. Oxford University Press.
  9. Marshall, B. (2019). No legal personhood for AI: Rethinking the limits of law. Technology and Society, 41(3), 389–401.
  10. Militsyna, L. (2021). Artificial intelligence and the limits of inventorship. European Intellectual Property Review, 43(7), 422–433.
  11. Pagallo, U. (2018). The legal challenges of AI: Modeling autonomy and accountability. Philosophy & Technology, 31(1), 137–155.
  12. Stepanov, S. (2021). Deconstruction of the legal personhood of artificial intelligence. Digital Law, 2(2), 14–30.
  13. Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2021] EWCA Civ 1374 (UK).
  14. Thaler v. USPTO, 558 F. Supp. 3d 238 (E.D. Va. 2021).
  15. U.S. Copyright Office. (2023). Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence.
  16. Wen, Z., & Tong, D. (2023). Analysis of the legal subject status of artificial intelligence. Beijing Law Review, 14(1), 74–86.
  17. WIPO. (2024). WIPO conversation on IP and frontier technologies: Human-to-machine innovation. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.
  18. World Trade Organization. (1994). Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.