A case study in innovation policymaking: Standard contracts and insights from relational contracting

To increase university–industry collaboration and research commercialisation, the Australian government recently introduced the Intellectual Property (IP) Framework, a set of online standard contracts. This follows a predecessor standard contract initiative, the IP Toolkit, which has not previously been evaluated. This paper aims to examine standard contracting in the innovation sector, tracing the policymaking behind the IP Toolkit using the lens of Macneil’s relational contract theory, to assess prospects of success for the new IP Framework, and similar initiatives in other jurisdictions

World first: An Australian court opens the door to inventor recognition rights for artificial intelligence systems

Rapid development and use of artificial intelligence (‘AI’) is creating significant regulatory challenges in many domains. In the intellectual property sphere, Stephen Thaler’s Artificial Inventor Project (‘AIP’) is challenging traditional concepts of who – and what – can be an ‘inventor’ for patent registration. With the filing of patent applications across multiple jurisdictions, managing inventor status of AI systems while ensuring innovation incentivisation is preserved is the question before patent offices, courts and legislatures globally. The AIP’s aim is to clarify, if not advance, AI ‘inventor’ eligibility. Thaler, the AI engineer behind the Project, has sought inventor status for his ‘sentient’ machine DABUS, in order to patent inventions ‘autonomously’ made by it. Australia’s 2021 Federal Court decision affirming machine inventors constitutes a world first – with other jurisdictions that have substantively considered the matter denying status. This article analyses the respective judgments and arguments raised, concluding the Australian decision to be out of step internationally, and with High Court authority and classic statutory interpretation. It nevertheless argues the need for focused dialogue around the intersection of AI and intellectual property, directions forward, and, as with other regulatory fields, the need for this intersection to remain the purview of legislative bodies rather than court

Autonomous vehicles: Regulatory, insurance and liability issues

Widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles, automated vehicles or driverless cars is expected to significantly disrupt the motor vehicle insurance industry. Fundamental to regulation of autonomous vehicles is who should be liable for injury or damage caused to the owner, driver or any other person in any accident. A “single insurer” solution is adopted in the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (UK), which extends compulsory motor vehicle insurance to cover the use of automated vehicles in automated mode. An alternative pathway is liability transfer to the manufacturer; however, this raises ambiguities in allocation of responsibility and liability where neither an identifiable human driver with full vehicle control nor a completely driverless vehicle system exists. Regardless of the final landing, increased automation will generate increased product liability claims and has potential implications for other policy types

Addressing Australia’s collaboration ‘problem’: Is there a Brave New World of innovation policy post COVID-19?

In a post-COVID world, innovation stimuli and well aligned policies will assume even greater importance as various sectors seek to recover lost ground and to generate new opportunities. Collaborative partnering in innovation R&D between private industry and higher education has increasingly emerged over the last decade as a leading key performance indicator for government policy development, and higher education research funding allocations. Recalibration of R&D-related policies and incentivisation will require careful consideration, with constructive lessons to be learned from outcomes over the last four decades. This Paper presents findings from a new study of stakeholder perceptions as to the National Innovation and Science Agenda’s impact on innovation partnerships, and synthesises outcomes from two prior studies. It then examines a newly proposed innovation policy framework, Stimulating Business Investment in Innovation (SBII), set against a background of the shifting mix of paradigms that have comprised Australian innovation policy over the last 40 years. It argues that, following the SBII, any proposed change of policy direction will face significant challenges in its implementation, requiring a fully committed and comprehensive embrace by Government of the new APS engagement framework and greater levels of deliberative democracy

University-industry engagement needs a triple helix joint venture: Getting it right goes way beyond demand- and supply-push incentives or commercial returns

Op ed piece on innovation policy post-Covi

A different perspective on AI inventors and Germany’s DABUS decision “paradox”

The recent German Federal Court of Justice decision may present a paradox in the artificial inventor (‘AI’) patent test cases: refusing Stephen Thaler’s request to name his AI system, DABUS, as inventor of an invention – and allowing Thaler to name himself as inventor instead, despite DABUS purportedly doing the inventing. This article aims to dispel the apparent paradox by considering other appellate DABUS decisions in the United Kingdom and Australia, and the broader aims of the patent system.</p

Addressing Australia’s collaboration ‘problem’: Is there a Brave New World of innovation policy post COVID-19?

In a post-COVID world, innovation stimuli and well aligned policies will assume even greater importance as various sectors seek to recover lost ground and to generate new opportunities. Collaborative partnering in innovation R&D between private industry and higher education has increasingly emerged over the last decade as a leading key performance indicator for government policy development, and higher education research funding allocations. Recalibration of R&D-related policies and incentivisation will require careful consideration, with constructive lessons to be learned from outcomes over the last four decades. This Paper presents findings from a new study of stakeholder perceptions as to the National Innovation and Science Agenda’s impact on innovation partnerships, and synthesises outcomes from two prior studies. It then examines a newly proposed innovation policy framework, Stimulating Business Investment in Innovation (SBII), set against a background of the shifting mix of paradigms that have comprised Australian innovation policy over the last 40 years. It argues that, following the SBII, any proposed change of policy direction will face significant challenges in its implementation, requiring a fully committed and comprehensive embrace by Government of the new APS engagement framework and greater levels of deliberative democracy

Autonomous vehicles: Regulatory, insurance and liability issues

Widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles, automated vehicles or driverless cars is expected to significantly disrupt the motor vehicle insurance industry. Fundamental to regulation of autonomous vehicles is who should be liable for injury or damage caused to the owner, driver or any other person in any accident. A “single insurer” solution is adopted in the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (UK), which extends compulsory motor vehicle insurance to cover the use of automated vehicles in automated mode. An alternative pathway is liability transfer to the manufacturer; however, this raises ambiguities in allocation of responsibility and liability where neither an identifiable human driver with full vehicle control nor a completely driverless vehicle system exists. Regardless of the final landing, increased automation will generate increased product liability claims and has potential implications for other policy types

World first: An Australian court opens the door to inventor recognition rights for artificial intelligence systems

Rapid development and use of artificial intelligence (‘AI’) is creating significant regulatory challenges in many domains. In the intellectual property sphere, Stephen Thaler’s Artificial Inventor Project (‘AIP’) is challenging traditional concepts of who – and what – can be an ‘inventor’ for patent registration. With the filing of patent applications across multiple jurisdictions, managing inventor status of AI systems while ensuring innovation incentivisation is preserved is the question before patent offices, courts and legislatures globally. The AIP’s aim is to clarify, if not advance, AI ‘inventor’ eligibility. Thaler, the AI engineer behind the Project, has sought inventor status for his ‘sentient’ machine DABUS, in order to patent inventions ‘autonomously’ made by it. Australia’s 2021 Federal Court decision affirming machine inventors constitutes a world first – with other jurisdictions that have substantively considered the matter denying status. This article analyses the respective judgments and arguments raised, concluding the Australian decision to be out of step internationally, and with High Court authority and classic statutory interpretation. It nevertheless argues the need for focused dialogue around the intersection of AI and intellectual property, directions forward, and, as with other regulatory fields, the need for this intersection to remain the purview of legislative bodies rather than court

AI inventors and status challenges: Australia weighs in on AI inventorship

In Thaler v Commissioner of Patents, handed down on 30 July 2021, Australia’s Federal Court became the first to recognise an artificial intelligence (‘AI’) system as inventor – in contradistinction to UK, European, German and US decisions on the issue. The Commissioner has appealed. This Opinion considers the various decisions and the prospects of the Australian decision being overturned, concluding the likelihood of this result, and, more broadly, why this is the correct way forward