The European Commission has launched a call for evidence on targeted measures to modernise the EU copyright framework, with generative AI at the centre. It is asking, in plain terms, how rights should be licensed and enforced in the context of generative AI — and has put a potential legislative initiative squarely on the table.
The contest between content owners and AI developers is shifting out of the courtroom and into the statute book, in the jurisdiction whose rules tend to become everyone’s rules. The question is no longer whether training data carries a price. It is who sets it, and who captures the value.
For IP-intensive organisations, this is a window, not merely a warning. The businesses that come out ahead will not be the ones waiting for a final text; they will be the ones already treating data provenance, rights reservations and licensing posture as strategic assets.
Three moves are worth considering now.
First, know your position — most companies are at once a licensor of content and a licensee of training data, and those roles pull in opposite directions; decide which one drives more value for you, and act on it.
Second, document provenance and reservations rigorously, because in a licensing market that is forming rather than formed, clean records are leverage.
Third, engage the consultation — rules under construction can still be shaped, and silence cedes that ground to competitors who show up.
The deeper lesson is one IP strategists keep relearning: regulatory uncertainty is not a reason to wait. It is precisely the moment disciplined IP strategy earns its keep, turning a looming compliance cost into a defensible competitive position. When the rules of the game are being rewritten, the smart players help hold the pen.
Sources
- European Commission, Commission seeks views on the review of EU copyright rules (18 May 2026): https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-seeks-views-review-eu-copyright-rules
- European Commission call for evidence portal, A better copyright environment for European creativity and innovation: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/18173-Targeted-initiative-for-a-better-copyright-environment-for-European-creativity-and-innovation-_en
- IPWatchdog, Other Barks & Bites (22 May 2026): https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/05/22/bites-barks-eu-call-for-evidence-targets-generative-ais-impact-copyright/
- Jones Day, Navigating Copyright in the Age of Generative AI: EU, French and UK Developments: https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2026/05/navigating-copyright-in-the-age-of-generative-ai-eu-french-and-uk-developments-and-approaches
How quickly a patent can lose its strategic value when the underlying disclosure isn’t built to withstand real‑world scrutiny. In the Federal Court’s decision in Orikan v VMS (No 2), Orikan’s infringement case faltered on multiple grounds, but most interestingly because the patent specification couldn’t carry the weight placed on it — with the Court upholding both insufficiency and best‑method attacks. For leaders in IP‑intensive organisations, this is a pattern worth noting: a patent that isn’t drafted with future enforcement, technical evolution and evidentiary demands in mind can become a weak strategic asset at precisely the moment it is meant to create leverage.
The judgment also highlights the competitive implications of disciplined IP governance. Questions around what was disclosed, how clearly it was disclosed, and whether the best method was actually described all point to the same strategic truth: IP strength is built long before litigation. Organisations that treat priority claims, internal knowledge capture and specification drafting as strategic processes — not administrative tasks — are better positioned to defend market share and shape competitive dynamics. The lesson is straightforward: thoughtful, well‑structured IP strategy is a commercial capability, and cases like this show what happens when that capability isn’t fully developed.
Read the full judgment here: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2026/2026fca0407
The latest Federal Budget reshapes the operating environment for IP‑intensive businesses in ways that go well beyond tax. Refundable R&D offsets for younger firms, the removal of supporting R&D categories, and the recalibration of ESS/MEP outcomes all shift how companies fund innovation, retain talent, and manage risk. These are not accounting tweaks — they are structural signals about where the Government wants innovation to occur, who should benefit, and how quickly firms must convert ideas into commercial outcomes.
More than ever, your IP strategy must now be tightly integrated with capital allocation, tax planning and organisational design.
The opportunity is to treat these changes as a catalyst for disciplined portfolio thinking. The new R&D settings reward firms that can demonstrate genuine core R&D, maintain clean evidence trails, and scale early‑stage innovation with intent. The ESS and CGT adjustments require a fresh look at how equity participation supports long‑term value creation. And the loss carry‑back and refundability rules reinforce the importance of timing — when you invest, when you recognise value, and when you lock in tax positions.
For IP‑intensive organisations, this Budget is a reminder that competitive advantage increasingly depends on the quality of your underlying systems: how you capture knowledge, how you structure incentives, and how you convert protected ideas into durable commercial outcomes.
Last week a US federal judge delaying final approval of Anthropic’s proposed US$1.5B copyright settlement with authors and publishers over alleged use of pirated books in training its Claude models. The judge pressed for more detail on lawyers’ fees, payments to lead plaintiffs, and the settlement’s structure, after objections and opt‑outs highlighted a core strategic question: how do we value copyrighted works when they become training inputs at scale?
For IP‑intensive organisations, that “valuation problem” isn’t academic. Boards should read it as a warning that data provenance, licensing posture, and reserve planning are becoming first‑order balance sheet issues.
If your business builds AI models, your defensible position will increasingly come from disciplined rights management—clean acquisition, documented permissions, and a clear story on what was used, when, and under what authority.
If your business owns content, this moment strengthens your negotiating leverage: it reinforces that “everyone’s data” arguments are weakening in the face of settlement economics, and that sophisticated rights holders will push for pricing that reflects commercial contribution, not just item counts. IP strategy is moving upstream—into product design, data governance, and deal architecture.
Audit your input rights now, model your litigation/settlement exposure as a realistic cost, and build licensing pathways that scale—because the organisations that can prove provenance will ship faster, partner easier, and carry less downside when the next dispute lands.
Read more here:
- Reuters via AOL: US judge considers Anthropic’s $1.5B settlement
- Ars Technica: Judge delays approval amid objections/fees concerns
- Courthouse News: Settlement nears approval; structure and payouts
- Authors Alliance: Fairness hearing observations and key objections
The recent McKinsey article “Using AI to boost productivity is unlikely to create a sustainable advantage” (read it here) offers a timely reminder for business owners with valuable IP portfolios: AI-driven efficiency gains won’t deliver lasting advantage, but using AI to reshape offerings, business models, and market positions absolutely can. Most companies are chasing incremental productivity, yet the real opportunity lies in combining proprietary data, patented technology, and protected workflows to build AI‑enabled offerings competitors can’t easily replicate. Intellectual property becomes the scaffolding for new AI‑native value propositions—those that redefine customer experience, cost structures, and market control points.
For IP‑rich businesses, the practical takeaway is clear: treat AI as a catalyst for expanding and defending profit pools, not just for internal efficiency. The winners will be those who combine protected technology, proprietary data, and defensible business models into reinforcing moats that deepen with use. As McKinsey notes, “advantage accrues disproportionately to organizations that move early, learn faster than peers, and build capabilities that compound.” That’s key to your IP strategy—identify where AI amplifies your unique assets, redesign your offerings around them, and position yourself where value will concentrate as transaction costs fall. In an AI‑reshaped economy, your IP isn’t just protection—it’s leverage.
The Federal Court’s decision in Deakin University v Macreadie (Final Orders) [2026] FCA 583 is a sharp reminder that IP strategy is not just about protecting assets — it’s about shaping the commercial narrative before disputes arise. Justice Wheelahan’s final orders confirm that Deakin secured a decisive outcome: a declaration of misleading conduct, permanent injunctions, cancellation of a trade mark registration, and even a mandated company name change. For business leaders, the strategic signal is clear: when your brand underpins your market position, disciplined ownership structures, clean chains of title, and proactive enforcement are not optional. As the Court put it, the second respondent’s conduct “constitutes conduct… likely to mislead or deceive”, and that finding became the foundation for every remedy that followed.
For IP‑intensive organisations, this case illustrates how well‑structured IP governance translates directly into commercial leverage. Deakin’s ability to demonstrate ownership, reputation and goodwill — and to do so with procedural discipline — meant it could secure broad, future‑proofing injunctions, including restraints on using the “Blue Carbon Lab” name and logo and an order cancelling the respondent’s trade mark registration. The indemnity costs ruling reinforces another strategic lesson: thoughtful litigation strategy, including well‑timed settlement offers, can shift risk and cost exposure dramatically. The pattern is unmistakable: organisations that treat IP as a strategic asset — not an afterthought — are better positioned to control their narrative, protect their markets, and avoid expensive detours.
You can read the full judgment here: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2026/2026fca0583
The Davies v Lazer Safe decision is a timely reminder that in IP disputes, leverage often sits in the procedural details. The Court clarified that an old filing restriction—tied to documents from long‑finished litigation—had nothing to do with Mr Davies’ attempt to bring a new patent infringement claim. As Justice Colvin noted, the earlier direction “did not concern the filing of originating applications,”. The Court has now asked the Registrar to reassess the new documents, with timing potentially relevant to limitation periods.
For businesses managing patents or broader IP portfolios, the message is clear: fresh acts of infringement can support fresh proceedings, even against familiar opponents, so long as you’re not trying to re‑run old arguments. The Court also reinforced that broad filing bans are exceptional and usually require a vexatious litigant order—useful for companies dealing with repeated or unmeritorious challenges. In IP enforcement, procedural clarity isn’t housekeeping; it’s an important part of your strategy.
European Patents – do applicants have to amend the description to match the allowed claims? Finally there is a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (G1/25) to sort out this conflict between the EPO guidance and the Board of Appeal.
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal decided in XSYS v Esko (UPC_CoA_156/2025) that the UPC has jurisdiction over alleged patent infringements that occurred before the UPC Agreement entered into force (1 June 2023) and even during periods when a European patent was opted-out, provided the opt-out is later withdrawn. IPKat
The European Commission has confirmed the official withdrawal of legislative draft proposals that would have increased EU regulatory oversight over both standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing and civil liability of artificial intelligence (AI) products and services.
The Tokyo District Court granted its first injunction (against Google’s Pixel 7) for SEP infringement in the Pantech v Google case, a landmark decision with implications for licensing practices and future litigation.
The Trump administration is reportedly considering a “patent tax” that would replace the current flat-fee maintenance structure with a percentage-based tax on patent value (between 1% and 5% annually). This potential shift, could significantly increase costs for certain patent holders and make the US an anomaly among major patent systems.
The USPTO’s denial of inter partes review (IPR) petitions under “settled expectations” doctrine extends to patents in force for only six years.
Rubik’s Cube owner (Spin Master Toys), loses 3D trade marks in dispute at the EU General Court as they cover functional features of the product (Spin Master Toys UK v. EUIPO – Verdes Innovations).
EPO enlarged board of appeal rules that non-reproducible commercial products are prior art when assessing novelty and inventive step. A product put on the market before the filing date of a European patent application cannot be excluded from the state of the art solely because its composition or internal structure could not be analysed and reproduced by the skilled person before that date. Technical information about a product made available to the public before the filing date forms part of the state of the art, irrespective of whether the skilled person could analyse and reproduce the product and its composition or internal structure before that date. EPO | IPKat
USPTO creates ‘settled expectations’ block to starting IPR proceedings and SAP challenges it. This allows discretionary denial of inter partes review (IPR) petitions for patents older than seven years. Patently’O | Jones Day | Patently’O (on SAP challenge)
European General Court denies application for colour trade mark registration – despite assistance from INTA and MARQUES. Yet again we see that it’s hard to get a non-traditional trade mark registration in the EU. IPKat | Arochi Linder
UK Supreme Court to hear appeal in Tesla Avanci 5G FRAND case. It’s been a while since the UK Supreme court has reviewed a FRAND case and Tesla is trying to make new law here with its supra-FRAND request to set a new global rate for the licence. (FRAND = Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory). IAM | UK Supreme Court | IP Fray
20,000 AI-generated music tracks are uploaded daily to platforms like Deezer, doubling in just two months. IP Close Up
EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal clarifies claim construction – yes you do need to consult the specification to interpret the claims: IPKat; Cooley; Pinsent Masons
Meta wins summary judgment win in AI training copyright lawsuit – but still plenty of room for copyright owners to prevail in the coming AI battles. (This and the recent Anthropic judgment both state the AI training as argued in these particular cases was not copyright infringement.): TechCrunch; Copyright Lately; Engadget;
US Government intervenes in patent infringement case supporting an injunction in favour of a non-practicing entity. This may lead back to the days of preliminary injunctions for patent owners… (Radian Memory Systems, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. (Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-1073)): IPWatchDog; IAM Patent;
Denmark contemplates copyright protection for facial features to allow people to protect their own likeness: Gizmodo; TechSpot;
You must be logged in to post a comment.