Sneha Jain

In a host of the cases filed in the US against Gen AI developers, one of the primary allegations concern unauthorized access and use of publicly available works for training. The allegations concern scraping of publicly available works, which are protected by copyright, for extracting meta-information to train and make Gen AI models capable of…

In the first article in the series, we explored the potential causes of action that a voice artist (like Lehrman) could bring against an AI tool developer (like Lovo) under Indian Data Protection laws. In this second article, we examines the potential causes of action under the Indian Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA”), by analysing…

In Part 3 of the Series, we explored the output side of things - showing how if the output generated by the Generative AI model is substantially similar or a trivial alteration, or an adaptation in a different format of a work, it may infringe the rights of the copyright owner. However, who will be…

In the first two posts in this series, we addressed Copyright concerns raised by Generative AI, primarily at the stage of training the LLM as well as using certain datasets. In the first post, we considered whether storing copyrightable works for training purposes is an infringing reproduction. In the second post, we analyzed whether extracting…

Most cases filed against AI software have focused on copyright claims. However, the case of Lehrman v. Lovo Inc (“Lovo Case”) offers a fresh perspective by invoking New York Civil Rights Law, Deceptive Practices Law, False Advertising Law and claims under Unfair Competition and False Affiliation, Unjust Enrichment, Tortious interference with advantageous business relationships, and…

Introduction. Determining patent infringement is a two-step process. First, the claims must be properly construed to determine their scope and meaning. Second, the claims, as properly construed, must be compared to the accused device.[i] Literal infringement may be found if an accused device or method falls entirely within the scope of the asserted claims once…

Having first considered the question of whether storing copyrightable works for training purposes is reproduction that amounts to copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, in this second post of this series we will specifically be looking at transformative and extractive uses, applicability of exceptions and limitations under Indian Copyright law, as well…

The scope of copyright liability of Generative AI (‘genAI’) models is a hot topic globally. Copyright issues that stem out of genAI technology can be categorized into four heads. All the litigations in the United States form a part of one of these four heads: Allegation of copyright Infringement due to copying/storage of copyrighted works…

Filing of patent working statements (Form 27s) in respect of granted Indian patents is a unique and significant, yet controversial, requirement under Indian patent jurisprudence. It is part of the patent bargain, i.e., patents should be worked in the countries where they are granted so that socio-economic benefits ensue therefrom. Lack of patent working can…