Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Continuity, Transformation and Protection Challenges 

Introduction 

Over the past sixty years, technological progress has profoundly transformed both the subject matter and the practice of intellectual property. From industrial innovations to advances in life sciences and digital technologies, each wave of innovation has raised new questions regarding protection and required existing legal frameworks to evolve, while preserving the fundamental principles at the core of IP law. 

Artificial intelligence is part of this ongoing evolution, while introducing challenges of its own. Through its rapid development and wide range of applications, AI has become an essential technology for businesses, offering significant opportunities in terms of efficiency, innovation and decision support, while also creating new uncertainties relating to rights, confidentiality and control over information. 

These developments directly affect intellectual property, a strategic asset for companies but one whose interaction with AI remains insufficiently understood in many cases. They also raise important questions for the practice of intellectual property professionals such as Patent and trademark attorneys and IP lawyers), whose role is precisely to analyze technical innovations and design appropriate protection strategies in constantly evolving technological environments. 

This article examines: 

• the integration of AI into everyday business activities and the legal issues it raises; 
• its impact on the profession of intellectual property consultants; 
• and the challenges associated with protecting AI-related technologies. 

1. AI in Everyday Use: Rights, Confidentiality and Control of Information 

Generative AI is now widely used for content creation, assistance with numerous tasks and technical development activities. Rapidly adopted by businesses, its use raises significant legal risks, particularly in relation to intellectual property and information management. 

In this context, a structured governance approach is essential. This includes implementing internal policies and appropriate training programs to raise awareness of: 

• the opportunities and limitations of AI tools; 
• the risks associated with the use of confidential information; 
• and the importance of respecting third-party rights. 

Such measures help ensure that AI is used responsibly, balancing its operational benefits with applicable legal requirements. 

Risks Relating to Confidentiality and Trade Secrets 

The use of AI tools requires the input of data, which may include sensitive information. Depending on the terms of use, this information may be stored, reused or exploited for model training purposes. 

This creates a risk of loss of confidentiality, particularly with regard to trade secrets. In the field of industrial property, such disclosure may also jeopardize the patentability of an invention, especially where novelty requirements are concerned. 

Particular attention should therefore be paid to the contractual terms, technical implementation and security features of the tools being used, as well as to the nature of the information provided to them. 

Risks of Infringing Intellectual Property Rights 

AI systems are typically trained on vast quantities of data, including content protected by intellectual property rights. This raises questions regarding the lawfulness of training data, the operation of the models themselves and the legal status of generated outputs. 

In certain circumstances, AI-generated outputs may reproduce or imitate protected elements, exposing users to potential infringement risks, particularly in relation to copyright and trademarks. 

A specific issue also arises with AI-generated software. Generated code may unknowingly incorporate elements governed by open-source licenses. Such licenses can impose restrictive obligations, including disclosure requirements or attribution obligations, which may conflict with a company’s intended protection or commercialization strategy. 

Uncertainties Surrounding AI-Generated Content 

Beyond infringement concerns, AI also raises questions regarding the nature and legal status of generated content. 

On the one hand, outputs may be inaccurate, inconsistent or unsuitable for their intended purpose. Given the complexity of these models, it remains difficult to predict their behavior reliably across all situations. 

On the other hand, ownership and protection of AI-generated content remain uncertain. In many jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, copyright protection is based on the existence of human authorship. As a result, content generated autonomously by AI may not qualify for protection, or its legal treatment may depend heavily on the degree of human involvement. 

Furthermore, the contractual terms governing AI tools often contain specific provisions regarding the use and exploitation of generated outputs, adding another layer of complexity. 

These uncertainties call for a cautious approach, especially when AI-generated content plays a strategic role within a business. 

2. The Impact on the Intellectual Property Profession 

AI directly affects intellectual property professionals, particularly through the emergence of generative tools that are especially effective in producing written content. 

Emerging Uses: Between Automation and Assistance 

At present, the most realistic applications of AI in professional practice do not involve full automation but rather targeted assistance. AI is particularly useful for automating repetitive tasks such as formatting, document structuring and data management, for developing internal tools and agents, and for supporting drafting and analytical work. 

Professional AI solutions nevertheless share a fundamental limitation: generative models are probabilistic by nature. They produce plausible outputs, but without any guarantee of accuracy. Unlike deterministic tools, they can generate inconsistencies, errors or even hallucinations. Their use without critical review may therefore create significant legal risks. 

As with businesses generally, the use of these tools also raises ongoing confidentiality concerns, depending on their architecture and terms of use. 

Moreover, the growing reliance on “one-click” solutions may weaken professional engagement. The rapid generation of polished text can encourage superficial validation at the expense of strategic thinking and careful analysis. 

In practice, these tools often produce content that is statistically plausible but strategically average: patent applications that may appear satisfactory at first glance but lack the differentiation and optimisation required for robust protection. 

For these reasons, AI cannot be regarded as a reliable tool in the same way as a calculator. It requires critical oversight and careful use by IP practitioners. 

Strengthening the Quality and Consistency of IP Analysis 

Despite these limitations, the integration of AI into professional practice appears inevitable. When used appropriately, it can be a valuable tool for: 

• facilitating document review and synthesis; 
• strengthening the quality and consistency of patent drafting and other written work; 
• testing alternative wording or legal arguments; 
• and challenging an analysis through simulated objections. 

In our view, this is the most appropriate approach today: using AI as a tool for reflection and discussion rather than as a substitute for professional judgement. 

AI can provide a form of “map” of possible solutions by identifying alternative formulations or analytical approaches. However, it cannot: 

• fully understand a client’s context; 
• assess economic, commercial or litigation-related constraints; 
• or assume responsibility for strategic decisions. 

These remain matters of professional expertise. The intellectual property consultant remains the only person capable of determining the most appropriate protection strategy. 

Ultimately, the principle remains simple: AI assists, humans decide. 

3. Protecting AI Through Patents 

The rise of AI has also led to a significant increase in patent filings, particularly before the European Patent Office (EPO). 

From the EPO’s perspective, AI-related inventions are generally treated as computer-implemented inventions. 

As such, they remain subject to the established principles of the European Patent Convention, notably: 

• the exclusion of mathematical methods and computer programs “as such”; 
• and the requirement that an invention possess technical character in order to be patentable. 

This approach is firmly rooted in established case law, particularly the COMVIK decision (T 641/00), according to which only features contributing to technical character can support inventive step. 

Contrary to a common misconception, AI does not constitute a separate legal category. It falls within a legal framework that has long existed for software-related inventions. 

Identifying a Technical Effect 

The particularity of AI lies in its underlying nature: it is based on mathematical models and algorithms, which are in principle excluded from patentability as such. 

The central issue is therefore the transition from the abstract to the technical. 

To be patentable, an AI-related invention must demonstrate either: 

• a technical effect resulting from its application (for example image processing, signal detection or the control of a technical system); 
• or a technical contribution linked to its implementation (for example resource optimisation or improved operation of a computer system). 

The EPO therefore accepts the patentability of many AI-based applications when they are integrated into a technical context. For example, the use of a neural network to detect anomalies in medical data or to process signals will typically be regarded as providing a technical contribution. 

By contrast, AI used solely for abstract purposes, such as purely conceptual classification or data processing without a technical purpose, will generally remain excluded. 

Although the distinction is conceptually well established, its practical application is often complex and requires careful drafting and a rigorous demonstration of the technical effect achieved. 

Increased Requirements for Drafting and Protection Strategy 

The specific characteristics of AI require particular care when preparing patent applications. It is often necessary to: 

• clearly define the technical problem being solved; 
• explicitly describe the technical effects achieved; 
• and, where relevant, characterize aspects of the model or training data that contribute to those technical effects. 

At the same time, the complexity and sometimes opaque nature of AI systems can make it difficult to strike the right balance between sufficient disclosure and the preservation of a competitive advantage. 

Protecting AI-related innovations through patents therefore requires a careful analysis of the technical effects actually achieved — a task that lies at the heart of the patent practitioner’s expertise. 

Conclusion 

Artificial intelligence has become an essential technology, rapidly adopted by businesses and capable of generating significant opportunities. At the same time, it requires increased vigilance, both in its use and in the protection of the innovations it enables. 

For intellectual property professionals, AI represents neither a complete disruption nor merely another technological development. Rather, it forms part of a broader process of continuous adaptation to technological change, which has always been a defining characteristic of the profession. 

In this respect, current developments do not fundamentally redefine the profession; they reinforce its core requirements. Analysis, judgement and responsibility remain central to the role of the IP practitioner in an environment where tools evolve rapidly but protection challenges remain critical. 

As Office Freylinger celebrates its sixtieth anniversary, this continuity becomes particularly evident: supporting innovation, understanding its technical implications and securing appropriate protection for businesses, regardless of how technology evolves. 

The European Patent Office (EPO) has announced that the official fees charged for European patent applications will be increasing from 1 April 2023. More details of the fee increases can be found on the EPO website.

On average, the official fees will increase by about 5%.

In view of the EPO’s official fee increases, applicants may want to consider the timing for paying fees in relation to their applications to maximise any opportunities to pay lower official fees.

For example, it may be sensible to file a European regional phase application (based on an international (PCT) application) before 1 April 2023, so as to avoid the fee increase. Furthermore, maintenance/renewal fees for European patent applications can be paid up to 3 months in advance of their due date, except for the first fee (for the 3^rd year) which can be paid up to 6 months in advance. Filing a divisional application before 1 April 2023 would also bring savings, as would requesting examination and paying designation fees ahead of the due date. 

If you would like advice on this, please get in touch with us.

On the 1st November 2023, the ten-day rule will be abolished and documents communicated by the EPO will be deemed to be notified at their indicated date.

Associated periods will thus begin to lapse from the date mentioned on communications by the EPO. These periods expiring inevitably earlier, owners of pending patent applications and their legal representatives will need to adjust their tracking of deadlines.

These changes are part of a policy of adaptation of EPC regulations to the digitization of the procedure of patent granting. Further information available at https://www.epo.org/news-events/news/2022/20221021.html

The present article presents some considerations on the possibility of opting out patents from the exclusive competence of the Unified Patent Court.

Staying in to benefit from the UPC system

The UPC will include:

• Judicial judges experimented in patent matters
• Technical Judges that are likely to have a better understanding of technically complex inventions and a better reasoning on patent infringement.

The new Court will obviously prevent situations of contradictory decisions that may occur when litigating the same case before different national Courts.

The Rules of Proceeding of the UPC are designed to reach decisions within one year, if the defined schedule is respected, thus substantially reducing the duration of proceedings compared to some national Courts.

The UPC is particularly powerful in case of multiple infringements in different European countries, since a decision can be obtained through a single action brought before the UPC and will have effect over all UPC-A member states. Choosing the UPC will, then, significantly reduce the litigation costs in comparison with several litigations to be carried out in different countries.

Reasons to opt out

With the UPC, a European patent can be revoked in all states by a single decision. This will allow third parties and suspected infringers to efficiently challenge the validity, during the whole lifetime of the patents.
Hence European patents obtained before the UPC opening and for which the opposition period has expired will remain at risk of central revocation.

Moreover, the lack of experience and case law from the UPC may make choosing the UPC risky as we do not know yet the position that will be taken by the Court, in particular regarding the validity of patents. Also, UPC rules and procedures are obviously untried; it will take several years to achieve consistency in decisions.

Another element to consider where making the choice to opt out patents is that opt-out must be made by all proprietors and in respect of all of the states for which the European patent has been granted, not only EU member states. The first difficulty that may arise from this rule is to identify the true proprietors of the patent, which will not necessarily be the registered proprietors, especially when patents have been assigned from a third party. Ownership should be checked, although there is no necessity to update/correct registers. The second difficulty is the necessity for all the proprietors to join the opt-out request. As such, it is likely that when litigation arise, the opt out itself may be subject to discussion.

A proprietor having registered an opt-out and wishing to bring an action before the UPC to benefit from its pan-European jurisdiction may opt in again, by withdrawing the opt-out. However, the proprietor may be impeded from opting back in where an action has already been brought before a national Court; the patent is thus locked out of the UPC forever.

Philippe OCVIRK, Partner | European patent attorney

UPC and Opt-Out

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) will open its doors in spring 2023. The date of 01.04.2023 has been announced by the Preparatory Committee . Its jurisdiction will extend over all European patents in the territories of EU member states having ratified the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC-A).
Antagonistically, while the UPC-A creates the long-awaited European patent Court, it also comprises provisions to derogate from its competence, known as ‘opt-out’.

Jurisdiction of the UPC

According to Art. 3 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC-A) the future UPC will have jurisdiction not only over European patents with unitary effect, but also over traditional European patents (‘validated’ patents) and pending applications, and over SPCs, even if these are granted before its entry into force.

During a ‘transitional‘ period however, the national Courts will remain competent to hear cases relating to validated European patents.

Opt-out definition

Opting-out is the option open to patentees and applicants to exclude disputes related to any of their validated European patents (in force or expired) or pending applications from the UPC’s jurisdiction. Any action for infringement or for revocation of an Opted-out European patent may only be heard by the competent national Courts, as is currently the case.
An opt-out has effect in all Member States and for the entire lifetime of the patent.

The UPC Preparatory Committee has decided that there will be no official fee for filing a request for an opt-out. There will however be costs associated with the handling of the opt-out procedure through your patent attorney firm.

For the avoidance of doubt, European patents with unitary effect cannot be opted out.

When to opt out

The registration of opt-outs will only be possible during the limited ‘transitional’ period (7 years, prolongable by 7 years). Practically, opt-out’s can be notified to the UPC Registry by the latest one month before expiry of the transitional period .
It should be noted that opting out will be possible during a ‘sunrise’ period spanning the three months preceding the opening of the UPC. The sunrise period is expected to start on 01.01.2023.

Important note: An Application to opt out a given patent cannot be registered if an action relating to said patent has already been brought before the UPC .

How to opt out

An application to opt out must be lodged with the UPC Registry.
Opt-outs are to be registered on a right per right basis and in the name of each and all proprietors or applicants.
The registers need not be updated, but in case of discrepancy a declaration must be filed alongside, stating that the requesters are entitled to be registered in the national patent registers.

The Application to opt out shall be made in respect of all of the states for which the European patent has been granted or which have been designated in the application.

The opt-out is only effective from the date of entry into the Register.

Withdrawal of the opt-out

An opt-out can be withdrawn at any moment, provided no action has been brought before a national Court .
This opt-in will then be definitive: the patent proprietor will not be able to opt out its European patent again .

If an opt-out application was registered for a pending European patent application, said opt-out will be automatically deemed withdrawn should the patentee decides to request unitary effect (obtain a unitary patent).

Philippe OCVIRK, Partner | European patent attorney

The European Patent Office (EPO) has announced a rise in many of its official fees (EPO Official Journal). The timing is in line with previous fee increases taking place biennially; most of the affected fees are increased by around 3%.

The new rates will apply to official fees paid on or after 1st April 2022 and so for some fees where the applicant has a choice over the timing of payment, savings may be made by proceeding before April.

Consider anticipating payments

We would particularly recommend clients to consider the savings that can be made by anticipating payments for:

Renewal fees: fall due on the last day of the month containing the anniversary of the date of filing of the European patent application. The payment can be made 6 months in advance in respect of the third year and 3 months in advance for the other years.

EPO regional phase: consider anticipating the fee payments in respect of pending PCT applications. It should be kept in mind that without an explicit request for early processing, the EPO will wait until the 31-month period has expired to process the international application. Accordingly, the payments can be made early without actually anticipating the prosecution of the application.

Divisional applications: make a decision on the opportunity of filing a divisional application before April and save on filing and search fees as well as on the (often many) back renewal fees due for the divisional application.

For more information on the increase in fees, and to discuss your options in filing early to save costs, please get in touch with your usual Office Freylinger attorney, or contact us here.

Philippe Ocvirk

Dernière étape de notre série de 5 webinaires.

Le logiciel n’est pas protégé en tant que tel par la propriété intellectuelle, mais par une série de différents droits: droits d’auteur sur le code source, droits de marque, de dessins ou modèles enregistrés, de noms de domaine, mais également parfois droits de brevet et/ou droits sur les bases de données.

Ce webinaire, destiné aux créateurs de logiciels, aux startups et aux entreprises faisant développer un logiciel, effectuera un tour d’horizon rapide des différents droits applicables, avant de fournir des clés pour éviter les risques liés notamment aux droits d’auteur, aux logiciels open source, ainsi qu’aux autres droits de propriété intellectuelle. Il abordera également la question de la structuration de la propriété intellectuelle, notamment pour les startups, et des contrats à mettre en place pour sécuriser un développement informatique.

Formation en ligne le 20.01.2021 de 11h30 à 12h30

Inscription gratuite, cliquez ici

Webinar 1 : Brevets

Voie royale de protection des innovations technologiques, le brevet protège nombre des produits que nous utilisons et consommons tous les jours. Le brevet garantit un avantage compétitif stratégique, mais constitue également un élément de l’actif immatériel de l’entreprise, qui peut être valorisé et transmis.
Ce webinaire est une introduction au système des brevets et aborde les grands principes du système des brevets : types d’inventions brevetables, critères de brevetabilité, utilité du brevet comme source d’information et comme outil de protection, éléments nécessaires au dépôt de brevet.

Formation en ligne le 30.09.2020 à 11h30 – durée 1h
Inscriptions, cliquez ici

 

Webinar 2: Luxembourg and the European patent system

After an introduction to the European patent system (national and European level), this webinar will focus on the advantages of Luxembourg as first filing country for patent applicants.

The Luxembourg patent system is simple and inexpensive. Patents, which can be filed in English, French or German, are granted after a short period (between 5 and 18 months from priority date).

The search report (established by the European patent office) is of high quality.
This makes Luxembourg a very attractive country for first filing and a select gateway to IP in Europe.

Target Audience: non-European IP professionals, managers and project leaders desiring to have an overview of the available patent protection routes in major EP juridiction in addition to EP patent.

Formation en ligne le 21.10.2020 à 10h00 (CET) – durée 1h
Inscriptions, cliquez ici

Webinar 3: fiscalité de la propriété intellectuelle

La fiscalité de la propriété intellectuelle a évolué ces dernières années, en passant du régime de l’article 50bis LIR, offrant une exonération de 80% des revenus nets de marques, brevets, modèles, droits d’auteur sur logiciel et noms de domaine, vers le nouveau régime de l’article 50ter LIR.
Ce nouveau régime, conforme aux exigences de l’OCDE, prévoit une exonération de 80% des revenus nets ajustés générés par les brevets et les droits d’auteur sur logiciel, y compris les revenus inclus dans le prix de vente de produits ou services par l’entreprise titulaire.

Ce webinaire présentera une introduction du nouveau régime, les droits qui permettent d’en profiter et les voies pour les obtenir, ainsi que la gestion et la structuration de la création et du maintien de la propriété intellectuelle nécessaires pour bénéficier du régime.

Il abordera également la transition entre l’ancien et le nouveau régime, et les modalités opérationnelles de cette transition.

Formation en ligne le 12.11.2020 à 11h30 – durée 1h
Inscriptions, cliquez ici

Webinar 4 : comment choisir sa marque

Une marque est un actif de propriété intellectuelle très important pour la majorité des entreprises. Mais il est indispensable de la choisir avec soin, afin d’éviter qu’elle ne soit pas protégeable (et que des concurrents puissent ainsi l’utiliser, et attaquer l’espace commercial du titulaire).
Il faut également s’assurer de ne pas porter atteinte à des marques ou droits antérieurs, car sinon une action en contrefaçon pourrait empêcher son usage, et créer des frais juridiques et marketing très importants.

Ce webinaire, dédié aux entrepreneurs et aux spécialistes du marketing et de la communication, abordera la question des critères de choix d’une marque, ainsi que les différentes recherches qui doivent être menées pour éviter des difficultés.

Formation en ligne le 2.12.2020 à 11h30 – durée 1h
Inscriptions, cliquez ici

 

Webinar 5 : Protection du logiciel

Le logiciel n’est pas protégé en tant que tel par la propriété intellectuelle, mais par une série de différents droits: droits d’auteur sur le code source, droits de marque, de dessins ou modèles enregistrés, de noms de domaine, mais également parfois droits de brevet et/ou droits sur les bases de données.

Ce webinaire, destiné aux créateurs de logiciels, aux startups et aux entreprises faisant développer un logiciel, effectuera un tour d’horizon rapide des différents droits applicables, avant de fournir des clés pour éviter les risques liés notamment aux droits d’auteur, aux logiciels open source, ainsi qu’aux autres droits de propriété intellectuelle. Il abordera également la question de la structuration de la propriété intellectuelle, notamment pour les startups, et des contrats à mettre en place pour sécuriser un développement informatique.

Formation en ligne le 13.01.2021 à 11h30 – durée 1h
Nouvelle date: 20.01.2021 de 11h30 à 12h30

Inscriptions, cliquez ici

 

Another chocolate dispute in trademark matters is ruled by the German Federal Court

“Ritter-Sport” packaging are protected as three-dimensional (3D) Trademarks for chocolate bars in class 30 in Germany since 1996 and 2001, respectively:

              

The applicant, “Milka” requested the cancellation of these 3D-Trademarks for absolute grounds. The DPMA rejected these requests. Milka appealed against those decisions whereupon the BPatG ordered in November 2016 the cancellation of the trademarks, stating that the signs consist exclusively of shapes or other characteristic features which are determined by the nature of the goods themselves.

“Ritter-Sport” appealed against this decision to the German Federal Court (BGH), who stated on 18 October 2017 that the 3D-trademarks do not exclusively consist of a shape determined by the nature of the goods themselves. It referred the case back to the BPatG in order to examine whether the shape confers an essential value to the product. The BPatG found that this ground for refusal did not apply and rejected Milka’s appeals.

Milka has appealed against this finding to the BGH who rendered his decision on 23 July 2020, dismissing the appeals.

The requests for cancellation of the 3D-trademarks are not justified.

According to the Court, the characteristics that have to be taken into consideration when assessing whether a shape confers an “essential value” to the product are in particular:

• the nature of the categories of goods in question,
• the artistic value of the shape,
• its difference in comparison to other shapes generally used on that specific market,
• significant price differences to similar products and
• the development of a marketing strategy that emphasizes the aesthetic qualities of the respective trademark.

The invoked ground for refusal (§ 3 (2) No. 3 MarkenG) exists if it is clear from objective and reliable evidence that the “essential value” largely determines consumer’s decision to purchase the product in question.

The BGH analysed if the shape of the packaging determines to a large extent the consumer’s decision to buy the Ritter-Sport chocolate bar by attributing substantial value to it. This analysis refers to prior case law of the BPatG, stating that the packaging itself has no particular artistic value and that there are no significant price differences to similar products. Even if Ritter-Sport has developed a marketing strategy in which the shape of the packaging is combined with the advertising slogan “Quality. Chocolate. Squared.”, the BGH concludes that this is not sufficient to give the shape of the packaging an “essential value” which largely determines the consumer’s decision to purchase the product in question. The BGH does not find any further indications of an essential value of the square-shaped packaging of the chocolate bars at issue.

Hence, the square-packaging for Ritter-Sport chocolate remains protected as a 3D-trademark.

Marie-Christine SIMON

L’Institut de la propriété intellectuelle à Luxembourg (IPIL) promeut plusieurs mesures exceptionnelles et limitées dans le temps qui s’inscrivent dans l’accompagnement des entreprises désireuses de se repositionner stratégiquement :

• A titre gratuit jusqu’à fin 2020, des recherches d’antériorités brevets si vous innovez dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pandémie, ou développez des innovations pour vous diversifier.
• Jusqu’à fin juin, le i-DEPOT est gratuit.
• Jusqu’à fin 2020, accès gratuits aux formations en ligne
  

Plus de détails sur le site de l’IPIL : https://ipil.lu/fr/propriete-intellectuelle-accompagnement-entreprises-post-covid-19/

Vos mandataires habituels sont également à votre disposition pour vous renseigner.

Comme chaque année, Office Freylinger participera à la Journée luxembourgeoise de la PI organisée le 25 avril 2019 par l’IPIL – voir notre post.

Dans ce contexte, le Luxembourger Wort a fait paraître un dossier spécial dans lequel nous publions un article intitulé “Bâtir votre stratégie de propriété intellectuelle”.

Start-up, découvrez notre package

Les fondateurs de start-up font face sur tous les fronts et la propriété intellectuelle (PI) a tendance à être perçue comme non prioritaire. Pourtant la PI est un actif précieux d’une jeune société technologique; elle représente un accélérateur et une sécurisation de leur croissance.

Office Freylinger a élaboré un package start-up qui prévoit un accompagnement sur les différents aspects PI auxquels les start-up sont confrontées.   Contactez-nous !

Quelques conseils à l’attention des start-up.

1. Assurez-vous d’être propriétaire de votre PI

Nombre d’acteurs interviennent autour d’une start-up et peuvent contribuer à sa PI. En outre, l’innovation intervient souvent en amont de la création de la société. Tous ces éléments créent des facteurs de risque sur la titularité de cette PI. Or il est essentiel qu’une start-up en soit propriétaire. Elle pourra prendre les démarches suivantes:

• Transfert à la société de la PI créé avant la constitution, par un accord écrit, ou au moyen d’un apport en nature;
• Tous les employés doivent être tenus à la confidentialité et les personnes employées pour effectuer de la R&D auront une mission inventive dans leur contrat de travail;
• Encadrement contractuel des relations avec les sous-traitants en prévoyant la cession de la PI développée pour le compte de la start-up. En effet, il est très courant que les logiciels (y compris les applications web) soient développés, partiellement ou totalement, par des partenaires externes. Il est alors indispensable d’effectuer un transfert des droits d’auteur et des autres droits liés au profit de la structure qui aura conçu, initié (et financé) le développement;
• Avec les partenaires, mise en place de contrats de développement qui prévoient notamment le sort des inventions développées conjointement.

 2. Optez pour un ou plusieurs modes de protection

Le brevet n’est pas le seul moyen de protection. En pratique, on combine souvent plusieurs droits pour protéger un objet donné.

C’est particulièrement le cas avec les logiciels et applications, qui nécessitent une protection multiple afin que leur propriétaire puisse intervenir efficacement contre les tiers qui copieraient ou s’inspireraient de ce programme informatique (voir notre article en annexe).

Il importe d’être conscient de sa PI et de prendre une décision sur le mode de protection à chaque stade de développement.

Les outils classiques à disposition sont:

• Brevets : protection des innovations techniques, y compris lorsque mises en œuvre par ordinateur;
• Droits d’auteur : pour les œuvres de l’esprit originales telles que publicités, livres, musiques, films et logiciels;
• Marques : protection du nom d’une société, de son logiciel et de ses produits ou services;
• Dessins et modèles : protègent l’apparence des objets, mais également utilisables pour les écrans, et ainsi protéger l’ergonomie et le «look-and-feel» d’un logiciel;
• Secrets d’affaires : protection basée sur la non-divulgation. Attention, la protection par le secret nécessite la mise en place de mesures destinées à conserver le secret! (cf. Directive UE 2016/943)

3. Bien gérer son portfolio

Une bonne connaissance de votre PI et des moyens de protection est importante vis-à-vis d’investisseurs et partenaires. Il faudra périodiquement fournir des listes des actifs de PI détenus. Dans ce contexte, une bonne pratique consiste à stocker systématiquement les informations dans une data room en ligne. On pourra y conserver les données relatives aux dépôts de brevets et aux autres droits de PI, les documents contractuels, les copies des dépôts de logiciel, etc., mais également effectuer un suivi des coûts.

La plateforme FiveOsixK  offre une solution efficace à prix abordable. Elle facilite également la revue de portefeuille, activité requise au moins une fois par an pour prendre des décisions sur le maintien des droits et faire vivre les contrats.

4. Attention à l’open source

Une start-up peut décider d’incorporer des modules open source dans son logiciel, ce qui permet d’accélérer le développement et est souvent gratuit.

Mais attention, open source ne signifie pas libre de droits !

L’usage d’open source implique l’acceptation de licences qui reposent sur quatre libertés fondamentales: exécuter le programme, l’étudier, l’adapter et le redistribuer. Il est donc recommandé de lire en détail les termes des licences open source.

À l’extrême, l’incorporation de modules open source dans un logiciel propriétaire développé par une start-up peut transformer ce dernier en logiciel open source. La start-up pourrait se voir dans l’obligation de distribuer à ses utilisateurs les modifications ultérieures ainsi que le code source confidentiel.

Il est donc recommandé d’établir des règles strictes sur l’emploi d’open source au sein de la start-up.