Insights

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued supplemental guidance on generative AI and patent examination, bringing two practical questions into the same frame: how examiners should treat material that appears to have been generated by AI when it is cited as prior art, and how applicants should explain human contribution in inventions developed with AI assistance.

The message is not that AI-generated material is automatically irrelevant. Nor is it that anything found online is reliable enough to defeat novelty or support an obviousness rejection. The centre of gravity moves back to evidence: whether the disclosure was publicly accessible, whether the technical teaching is enabling, whether an apparent combination is more than synthetic text assembly, and whether the named human inventors can explain their contribution to the claimed invention.

Korea’s Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) has launched a consolidated “AI, Data and Intellectual Property” webpage on the Korea Institute of Intellectual Property (KIIP) website, bringing together research materials on the intersection of artificial intelligence, data and IP. The page is organised around four areas: AI technology and patent trends, AI and IP policy systems, data and IP, and AI-generated works and IP. In practical terms, it gives users one place to follow issues such as copyright in AI-generated outputs, inventorship and examination questions for AI-related inventions, and protection of data assets.

The webpage does not create a new rule by itself, but it is a useful policy signal. Korea is treating AI, data assets and IP reform as connected questions rather than separate files. For companies, the implication is simple: when AI tools are used in R&D, content production or data-driven services, records on training data, human contribution, output risk and data asset protection should be managed together from the start, not reconstructed only after a dispute or examination issue arises.

India’s Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has notified users that scheduled maintenance of its copyright e-services has been completed, with online filing, public search and e-register services fully restored from 6:00 p.m. on 12 May 2026. For applicants and representatives, the immediate task is practical rather than theoretical: check pending filings, any deadline arrangements linked to the outage, and the accuracy of system records once the portal is back in operation.

The notice comes as CGPDTM is also promoting recent gains in patent examination speed, including cases in which patents were granted in 113 days. That figure should not be read as a universal processing standard, but it does show where India wants the conversation to move: more reliable digital services on the copyright side, and faster examination capacity on the patent side. Companies using India as a filing jurisdiction should respond by tightening document readiness, prior art review and response planning. Faster examination can be useful, but it also leaves less room for slow internal review when an office action arrives.

After a pilot phase, the European Patent Office has announced the wider use of AI-assisted tools for preparing minutes of oral proceedings. Under the workflow described by the EPO, audio from the hearing can first be transcribed by an AI tool, after which members of the division may use another AI tool to prepare a draft of the minutes; the final record remains under the responsibility of the competent examining or opposition division. The point is not to automate oral proceedings, but to make an important procedural record faster to produce and easier to check.

For applicants, opponents and representatives, quicker access to minutes is useful, but it also raises the value of clear procedural discipline during the hearing. Requests, concessions, new submissions and technical points should be presented in a way that can be captured accurately. The EPO’s accompanying internal guidance on AI-enabled examination processes keeps the essential boundary in place: AI may support efficiency, but the substantive decision to grant or refuse a patent remains a human examiner’s task. That distinction will matter whenever parties need to challenge the record or understand the reasons behind an examination outcome.

The EUIPO Observatory has announced that Agorateka, its gateway for directing users to legal online content, now covers all 27 EU Member States. The portal’s purpose is straightforward: help consumers find lawful sources for music, films, games, books, sports and other protected content, reducing the default visibility of pirate services. In the EU’s wider digital enforcement landscape, however, full coverage matters. Once legal access points are mapped across the Union, platforms, advertising networks and enforcement bodies can compare unauthorised content distribution with available lawful alternatives in a more consistent way.

The parallel push on open-web and dark-web enforcement shows where EU anti-piracy work is heading. OSINT methods, website monitoring and AI-based crawlers are increasingly used to trace commercial-scale infringement, especially networks monetised through advertising traffic, redirect domains, mirror sites and hidden communication channels. For right holders, the lesson is practical. The value of removing one link is falling; stronger action depends on turning repeated domains, ad-placement trails, payment clues, account migration and content fingerprints into evidence packages that enforcement agencies can actually use. Anti-piracy work is moving from reactive takedown to earlier mapping of the business network behind infringement.

The African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) has announced the 2026 call for its IP-based Structural Project Financing Programme, PFPSPI-2026, opening applications to projects from its 17 member states. The programme targets initiatives that can connect intellectual property tools with economic and social development, and applicants are expected to submit their files through the national liaison structures in OAPI member states. OAPI has also made available the press release, the call document, the application form and an explanatory note for preparing the submission package.

The practical point is not simply that another funding window is available. OAPI is pushing IP policy into project design, local industry development and public-interest outcomes. Applicants will need to show how patents, trade marks, industrial designs, geographical indications or collective marks can support commercialisation, branding, technology diffusion or community-level value creation. A strong application is therefore unlikely to be built on a broad development narrative alone; it should connect the IP asset, the target beneficiaries, the implementation path and measurable economic or social results.