Peter R. Slowinski, J.S.M. (Stanford)

Beiträge in Sammelwerken, Kommentierungen, Handbüchern und Lexika

Inter- und Intradisziplinarität in der juristischen Forschung und Lehre, in: Kreation Innovation Märkte - Creation Innovation Markets - Festschrift Reto M. Hilty, Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2024, 753 - 765. DOI

• Zunehmend komplexe Fragestellungen zur Anreizsetzung für Innovationen in Bereichen wie der Künstlichen Intelligenz, der Geneditierung oder des Klimawandels stellen eine Herausforderung für die Rechtswissenschaft dar. Will diese die Sachverhalte tatsächlich durchdringen und rechtlich greifen, zwingt dies zu einem Aufbrechen von Silodenken und zu einer stärkeren Nutzung inter- und intradisziplinärer Ansätze. Diese neuen Herausforderungen für die Rechtswissenschaft zwingen zugleich zu einem Umdenken bei der Ausbildung künftiger Generationen von Rechtswissenschaftlerinnen und Rechtswissenschaftlern.

Artificial Intelligence, Novelty and Inventive Step: What Is the Impact of AI on Patent Law?, in: Rafal Sikorski, Zaneta Zemla-Pacud (Hg.), Patents as an Incentive for Innovation, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2021, 253 - 268.

Rethinking Software Protection, in: Jyh-An Lee, Reto M. Hilty, Kung-Chung Liu (Hg.), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2021, 341 - 364.

• The core of artificial intelligence (AI) applications is software of one sort or another. Of course, if software were a mere ingredient, we may have had AI applications already decades ago. After all, it was Allen Touring who in the 1950s developed the first test for AI and concepts surrounding it. But while available data and computing power are important for the recent quantum leap in AI, there would not be any AI without computer programs or software. Therefore, the rise in importance of AI forces us to take — once again — a closer look at software protection through intellectual property (IP) rights, but it also offers us a chance to rethink this protection, and while perhaps not undoing the mistakes of the past, to at least adapt the protection so as not to increase the dysfunctionality that we have come to see in this area of law for the past decades. To be able to establish the best possible way to protect — or not to protect — the software in AI applications, this chapter starts with a short technical description of what AI is, and readers are referred to other chapters in this book for a deeper analysis (1). It continues by identifying those parts of AI applications that constitute software to which legal software protection regimes may be applicable (2), before outlining those protection regimes, namely copyright and patents (3). The core part of the chapter analyses potential issues regarding software protection with respect to AI using specific examples from the fields of evolutionary algorithms and of machine learning (4). Finally, the chapter draws some conclusions regarding the future development of IP regimes with respect to AI (5).
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 20-17

Section 6.4 - Further instruments to protect the results of clinical research - Summary, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 88.

Chapter 19 - SPCs for plant protection products, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 471 - 481 (gemeinsam mit Roberto Romandini, Luc Desaunettes).

Chapter 17 - Paediatric extensions, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 386 - 398 (gemeinsam mit Roberto Romandini).

Chapter 16 - Duration of the SPC (Art. 13 Reg. 469/2009), in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 377 - 385 (gemeinsam mit Roberto Romandini et al.).

Chapter 15 - The rights conferred by the SPC and its limitations (Art. 5 Reg. 469/2009), in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 301 - 376 (gemeinsam mit Roberto Romandini et al.).

Chapter 8 - The Effectiveness of the SPC System in the EU, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 106 - 130 (gemeinsam mit Roberto Romandini, Victoria Rivas).

Kapitel 3.3 - Spezifische Fehlstellungen mit Bezug auf den Binnenmarkt, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger (Hg.), Europäisches Immaterialgüterrecht - Funktionen und Perspektiven (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 26), Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2018, 451 - 663 (gemeinsam mit Seyavash Amini et al.). DOI

Patenting Coffee - IP Protection and Its Impact on Innovation in the Coffee-Capsule Market, in: Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation (Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, 3), Springer, Berlin 2014, 489 - 503 (gemeinsam mit Reto M. Hilty). DOI

• Despite a hard to kill belief patents are not a booster for innovation per se but an instrument of competition and innovation policy that needs to be used in a careful manner and with a clear understanding of its functioning and consequences. In the last decades discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of the patenting system have circulated mostly around pharmaceuticals or the information technology. Some of the most important questions addressed in these discussions are the ever rising and unmanageably large number of patents, a phenomenon known as patent thickets, the overlapping of different intellectual property rights, and in consequence the limitation of necessary competition.

Aufsätze

Revisiting the Framework for Compulsory Licensing of Patents in the European Union – Reflections on the European Commission’s Initiative, GRUR Int 72, 5 (2023), 471 - 482 (gemeinsam mit Matthias Lamping et al.). DOI

• Within the scope of its initiative on ‘Compulsory Licensing in the EU’,8 the European Commission launched a call for evidence on 1 April 2022 and a public consultation on 7 July 2022 with the aim of gathering views from stakeholders. The objective of this initiative is to explore the possibility of revising the framework for compulsory licensing in the EU to make it more ‘adequately prepared and coordinated to tackle future crises’.9 The authors of this position paper welcome the Commission’s attempt to reinvigorate the public discourse on this important subject.
  
  Depending on the issue to be addressed and the extent of the Commission’s willingness to reform, different regulatory approaches are conceivable. Subject to compatibility with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, these include:
  
  Rather than making concrete recommendations on the regulatory approach, this paper addresses selected aspects by way of a preliminary, non-exhaustive note on: the proposed reform’s scope and the grounds for a compulsory licence; the requirements of prior negotiation and licensing failure; government use; procedural matters; compulsory licences for patent applications and products; the relation with other regulations and sui generis regimes (i.e. trade secret protection, regulatory data protection and supplementary protection certificates); the concept of adequate remuneration; compulsory licences for European patents with unitary effect; and the exhaustion of products placed on the market under a compulsory licence.
  
  – soft law measures, such as guidelines and recommendations;
  
  – harmonisation of national laws (substantive and/or procedural);10
  
  – judicial cooperation (i.e. mutual recognition of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases);11
  
  – centralisation of granting and/or judicial review competences;
  
  – creation of a supranational compulsory licence;
  
  – or any combination thereof.

The Data Sharing Economy: On the Emergence of New Intermediaries, IIC 50, 1 (2019), 4 - 29 (gemeinsam mit Heiko Richter). DOI

• Data-driven markets depend on access to data as a resource for products and services. Since the quality of information that can be drawn from data increases with the available amount and quality of the data, businesses involved in the data economy have a great interest in accessing data from other market players. However, companies still appear to be reluctant to share their data. Therefore, the key question is how data sharing can be incentivized. This article focuses on data sharing platforms, which are emerging as new intermediaries and can play a vital role in the data economy, as they may increase willingness to share data. By comparing data sharing to the exchange of patents based on the FRAND principles, this article suggests a possible way for self-regulation to provide more transparency and fairness in the growing markets for data sharing.

Study Question 2017 – Quantification of monetary relief, GRUR Int 66, 8-9 (2017), 737 - 744 (gemeinsam mit Clemens Heusch et al.).

Standardessentielle Patente – Perspektiven außerhalb des Kartellrechts, GRUR Int 64, 9 (2015), 781 - 792 (gemeinsam mit Reto M. Hilty).

Entscheidungsanmerkungen

Licensing Standard Essential Patents and the German Federal Supreme Court Decisions FRAND Defence I and FRAND Defence II, IIC 52, 10 (2021), 1490 - 1497. DOI

Comment on the German Federal Supreme Court Decision "Raltegravir" - Patent Act, Secs. 24, 85(1), IIC 49, 1 (2018), 125 - 130. DOI

Case Note on: "United Video Properties", IIC 48, 3 (2017), 373 - 377. DOI

Perlentaucher/FAZ, Comment on the decision by the German Federal Supreme Court, IIC 42, 8 (2011), 989 - 992.

Tagungs- und Diskussionsberichte

Declaration on Patent Protection: Regulatory Sovereignty under TRIPS – Bericht zum Workshop in Berlin am 11. und 12.7.2017, GRUR Int 67, 1 (2018), 30 - 33.

• Event: Workshop zur Patent Declaration, Berlin, 2017-07-11

Forschungspapiere

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 6 February 2024 on the Commission's Proposal for a Regulation on Standard Essential Patents (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 24-03), 2024, 41 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

• Available at SSRN

New Genomic Techniques and Intellectual Property Law: Challenges and Solutions for the Plant Breeding Sector (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 23-16), 2023, 40 S. (gemeinsam mit Daria Kim et al.).

• On 5 July 2023, the European Commission issued a proposal for the regulation that intends to relax the requirements for marketing authorisation of plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques (NGTs) in the EU. While NGTs are expected to become more appealing to breeders and farmers, the complexity of the intellectual property (IP) landscape surrounding such techniques and resulting products can have a discouraging effect on innovation. In view of numerous concerns related to IP protection for NGTs and NGT-derived plants, the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition has published a Position Statement with a set of policy recommendations that can facilitate access to and utilisation of IP-protected NGTs in the breeding sector.
• Available at SSRN

CRISPR/Cas Technology and Innovation: Mapping Patent Law Issues (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 22-06), 2022, 49 S. (gemeinsam mit Daria Kim et al.).

• The paper provides a systematic overview of issues arising at the interface between CRISPR/Cas technology and patent law. In particular, it examines aspects related to the patentability of CRISPR/Cas-based methods of genome editing, on the one hand, and access to patented technologies, in view of the expanding CRISPR patent landscape, on the other hand. On the whole, our findings show that the case of CRISPR/Cas technology is prototypical of the policy dilemma in patent law as to how to balance economic incentives of multiple innovators in a cumulative innovation setting. The reviewed technical, legal and economic factors suggest the preconditions for technology underutilisation. While this paper presents the results of the exploratory phase of research, it sets a framework for the further, more targeted interdisciplinary examination of the identified issues.
• Available at SSRN

Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 21-20), 2021, 11 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.). DOI

• On 30 July 2021 the Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision in which it accepted that an artificial intelligence (AI) system called DABUS can be deemed the inventor under Australian patent law. While the decision appears ground-breaking at first sight, it was mostly based on unverified assumptions regarding the technical capabilities of AI systems in general and DABUS in particular. Furthermore, the decision omits important questions regarding the consequences that may follow from attributing inventorship to an entity that lacks legal capacity without undertaking a comprehensive analysis that would justify such attribution. This Position Statement highlights the shortcomings of the decision and points to those factual and legal questions that need to be answered first before recognising AI systems as inventors. While it responds primarily to the decision of the Australian Federal Court, the presented arguments can be of relevance for any jurisdiction dealing with the question of whether an AI system can be deemed an inventor under patent law.

Technical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence: An Understanding from an Intellectual Property Law Perspective (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 19-13), 2019, 15 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

• The present Q&A paper aims at providing an overview of artificial intelligence with a special focus on machine learning as a currently predominant subfield thereof. Machine learning-based applications have been discussed intensely in legal scholarship, including in the field of intellectual property law, while many technical aspects remain ambiguous and often cause confusion.
  This text was drafted by the Research Group on the Regulation of the Digital Economy of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in the pursuit of understanding the fundamental characteristics of artificial intelligence, and machine learning in particular, that could potentially have an impact on intellectual property law. As a background paper, it provides the technological basis for the Group’s ongoing research relating thereto. The current version summarises insights gained from background literature research, interviews with practitioners and a workshop conducted in June 2019 in which experts in the field of artificial intelligence participated.
• Available at SSRN

Stellungnahmen

Revisiting the Framework for Compulsory Licensing of Patents in the European Union, 2023, 27 S. (gemeinsam mit Matthias Lamping et al.).

• Within the scope of its initiative on “Compulsory Licensing in the EU”, the European Commission launched a call for evidence on 1 April 2022 and a public consultation on 7 July 2022 with the aim of gathering views from stakeholders. The objective of this initiative is to explore the possibility of revising the framework for compulsory licensing in the EU to make it more “adequately prepared and coordinated to tackle future crises”. The authors of this position paper welcome the Commission’s attempt to reinvigorate the public discourse on this important subject. This paper addresses selected aspects by way of a preliminary, non-exhaustive note on: the proposed reform’s scope and the grounds for a compulsory licence; the requirements of prior negotiation and licensing failure; government use; procedural matters; compulsory licences for patent applications and products; the relation with other regulations and sui generis regimes (i.e. trade secret protection, regulatory data protection, and supplementary protection certificates); the concept of adequate remuneration; compulsory licences for European patents with unitary effect; and the exhaustion of products placed on the market under a compulsory licence.
• Opinion published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 23-07

Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide, 2021, 11 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

• MPI_Position_statement_AI_Inventor_2021-08-09.pdf

Covid-19 and the Role of Intellectual Property - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 7 May 2021, 2021, 11 S. (gemeinsam mit Reto M. Hilty et al.).

• In this Statement, the authors take a position on the waiver of intellectual property (IP) protection currently being considered by the members of the World Trade Organisation. The waiver was initiated by India and South Africa as a measure to enable rapid access to affordable medical products that are necessary to combat Covid-19. The initiative gained momentum after the US decided to support it. The authors do not consider this path to be expedient. The Statement presents factual and legal arguments why a comprehensive waiver of IP protection is unlikely to be a necessary and suitable measure towards the pursued objective. Overall, it argues that IP rights may so far have played an enabling and facilitating rather than hindering role in overcoming Covid-19. The global community might not be better off if IP rights are waived, neither during nor after the pandemic. There are more efficient and direct ways to supply developing countries with vaccines quickly – if the industrialised countries are willing to do their share.
• 2021_05_25_Position_statement_Covid_IP_waiver.pdf
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-13

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 9 April 2021 on the Current Debate, 2021, 26 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

• This Position Statement presents a broad overview of issues arising at the intersection of AI and IP law based on the work of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition research group on Regulation of the Digital Economy. While the analysis is approached mainly from a perspective de lege lata, it also identifies questions which require further reflection de lege ferenda supported by in-depth interdisciplinary research. The scope is confined to substantive European IP law, in particular, as regards copyright, patents, designs, databases and trade secrets. Specific AI-related issues are mapped out around the core questions of IP law, namely, the eligibility for protection under the respective IP regimes, allocation of rights and the scope of protection. The structure of the analysis reflects three key components of AI: inputs required for the development of AI systems, AI as a process and the output of AI applications. Overall, it is emphasised that, while recent legal and policy discussions have mostly focused on AI-aided and AI-generated output, a more holistic view that accounts for the role of IP law across the AI innovation cycle is indispensable.
• MPI_PositionPaper__SSRN_21-10.pdf
• Also published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-10

Stellungnahme zum Diskussionsentwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts, 2020, 16 S. (gemeinsam mit Luc Desaunettes-Barbero et al.).

• Das Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb nimmt hiermit zum Diskussionsentwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts Stellung, der vom Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz im Januar 2020 vorgelegt wurde. Das Institut begrüßt die Initiative des Ministeriums, empfiehlt im Hinblick auf die Beschränkung des patentrechtlichen Unterlassungsanspruchs und die Stärkung des Schutzes von Geschäftsgeheimnissen in Patentstreitsachen jedoch gewisse Präzisierungen.
  Mit Blick auf die Beschränkung des Unterlassungsanspruchs nach Maßgabe des Grundsatzes der Verhältnismäßigkeit wird vorgeschlagen, die Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung nicht auf einen Anwendungsfall der Gebote von Treu und Glauben zu reduzieren, sondern im Sinne der ratio legis des Patentrechts zu verstehen; insoweit als Maßnahme zur Verhinderung dysfunktionaler Effekte des Ausschließlichkeitsrecht bzw. des damit verbundenen Unterlassungsanspruchs. Zur Veranschaulichung des Ansatzes wird auf die Fallgruppen der komplexen Produkte, der Patentverwerter und der standardessenziellen Patente Bezug genommen, ohne sie jedoch im Detail durchzuprüfen. Mit Blick auf die im Rahmen der Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung vorzunehmende Interessenabwägung wird darauf hingewiesen, dass die Interessen des Patentinhabers gegenüber jenen des Verletzers keinen grundsätzlichen Vorrang genießen. Darüber hinaus sind bei der Abwägung nicht nur die Interessen der Streitparteien, sondern auch jene Dritter, insbesondere das öffentliche Interesse, zu berücksichtigen.
  Mit Blick auf den Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen in Patentstreitsachen verweist die Stellungnahme auf Unzulänglichkeiten des Verfahrens in Geschäftsgeheimnisstreitsachen, die durch die angedachte Anwendung der entsprechenden Vorschriften auf das Patentstreitverfahren übertragen werden. Hingewiesen wird auch auf eine mögliche Regelungslücke in Bezug auf das "Düsseldorfer Verfahren", die von Patentinhabern für sog. "fishing expeditions" ausgenutzt werden könnte.
  
• This position paper of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition provides comments on the amendments proposed by the German Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in its discussion draft of January 2020 on the modernization and simplification of the German Patent Act. While the Institute generally welcomes the initiative, the paper offers some suggestions aimed at increasing precision in the areas of first, the concept and the implementation of the proportionality test for granting injunctive relief, and, second, the need for enhanced protection of trade secrets in patent disputes.
  
  With regard to the proportionality assessment, the Institute suggests that, rather than reducing it to an application of the principle of good faith, the concept of proportionality should be interpreted and applied in light of the ratio legis of patent protection with a view to preventing dysfunctional effects potentially resulting from the exercise of the exclusive right and the associated claim to an injunction. Scenarios involving complex products, non-practicing entities and standard-essential patents are used to illustrate the approach. As regards the weighing and balancing of interests when assessing proportionality, the position paper argues that it is neither desirable nor appropriate to prioritize the interests of the patentee over those of the infringer as a matter of principle. In addition, it is not only the interests of parties to the dispute, but also those of third parties, in particular the public interest, that should be taken into account.
  
  With regard to the protection of trade secrets in patent disputes, the position paper refers to certain procedural insufficiencies of the Trade Secrets Act to adequately protect the defendant’s secrecy interests. It also points out a potential loophole in relation to the "Düsseldorf proceedings" that may facilitate "fishing expeditions".
• Stellungnahme_2020-03-1final.pdf
• Also published at SSRN as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper No. 16
• English version published under the title: Position Paper on the Envisaged Reform of the German Patent Act as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 20-05

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 11 February 2020 on the Draft Issues Paper of the World Intellectual Property Organization on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence, 2020, 9 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

• WIPO AI Draft Issue Paper_Comments_Max Planck.pdf

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 26 April 2017 on the European Commission's "Public consultation on Building the European Data Economy", 2017, 13 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

• This Position Statement responds to the Communication of 10 January 2017 by which the European Commission launched a public consultation on the future legal framework for data-driven markets that emerge in the course of the current digitization of industrial production and the advent of smart products in which sensors are embedded. In particular, the Position Statement comments the Commission’s ideas on a possible future data producer’s right as a means of promoting access to data. While the Max Plank Institute agrees that there are indeed instances where there is a need to “unlock data”, it rejects a data producer’s right. Rather, the Institute recommends considering more targeted data access rights that would specifically react to situations in which a manufacturer of smart products would otherwise try to reserve related markets for itself. The Max Planck Institute thereby takes inspiration from the data portability right that has already been implemented as part of the Basic Data Protection Regulation. Moreover, general principles on the design of data access regimes are developed. In sum, the Max Planck Institute favours a sector-specific approach to the introduction of a general data access right or a generally applicable data access regime. Sector-specific rules are especially needed for answering more concrete questions such as regarding the person entitled to claim access or the one of whether a data holder should be remunerated for granting access to data.
• MPI_Statement_Public_consultation_on_Building_the_EU_Data_Eco_28042017 Copy.pdf
• Chinese Translation of the Position Statement
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 17-08

Andere Veröffentlichungen, Presseartikel, Interviews

Unpacking AI and Patents with Peter Slowinski: Who's Really Inventing - Human or Machine?, MondAI bAIgel Bytes: Legal Tech & AI Insights with host Michał Jackowski 2023.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=b4hkua_siWHbKOk2&v=7dLA_pYNjpg&feature=youtu.be

Modernizing German Patent Law: Toward an Explicit Obligation for Proportionality Control of Injunctions?, Oxford Business Law Blog 2020 12.06.2020 (gemeinsam mit Luc Desaunettes-Barbero et al.).