There are myriad open questions and challenges for the Unified Patent Court (UPC) system and the unitary patent, which constitute a new layer to the European patent landscape on top of the existing courts and types of patents. One of those is the question of how this new system will interact with utility models, which seems to have mostly escaped academic scrutiny so far. This chapter explores this interaction, focusing predominantly on the consequences of the new unitary patent and the UPC for strategies surrounding patents and utility models, including the division of judicial competence. By considering, amongst other things, the complicated relationship and overlap of these rights, the limited but influential mandate of the UPC, the fragmented landscape for utility models, and the different sources of law governing a unitary patent, this chapter examines how litigation before the UPC may affect (strategies involving) utility models.

Since 1985, when China’s first Patent Law came into effect, China has established a legal protection system for utility models. At present, after four revisions of the Patent Law, China’s utility model patent legal system has also been improved. However, among the authorized utility model patents, those that fully meet the necessary conditions of novelty and inventive step might be in the minority. Of course, this phenomenon is not unique in China. The purpose of this chapter is to illuminate the ongoing optimization of the Chinese utility model patent system in the context of the development of China’s overall patent system. Accordingly, Part Ⅰ traces the emergence of China’s Patent System, including the Chinese utility model patent-based subsystem. Part Ⅱ centers on the basic contours of the Chinese utility model patent system. Part Ⅲ then summarizes existing deficiencies of the Chinese utility model patent system and future development trends. It concludes with a discussion of potential implications of proposed revisions to the Chinese utility model patent system.

In Germany, the utility model is a type of intellectual property right that provides protection for novel and useful inventions. It is governed by the German Utility Model Act (“Gebrauchsmustergesetz” – GebrMG) which was enacted in 1891, making it the oldest still-existing utility model system in the world. Utility models grant the right holder exclusive control over the use and commercialisation of an invention for a period of ten years from the date of filing, subject to the payment of annual renewal fees. In a way, the utility model is the “little sister” of a full-fledged patent (also called a “petty patent”), protecting the same type of subject matter (technical inventions) with a more limited scope.

While national rules regarding the scope, availability and issuance of utility models vary from country to country, most utility model regimes offer protection for tangible products, with many, but not all, jurisdictions excluding processes, biological materials and computer software from the scope of protection. The duration of utility model protection ranges from five to fifteen years, with most countries offering ten years of protection. In most countries, utility model applications are not formally examined and must simply disclose the product in question. Given the lack of examination, obtaining utility models is generally viewed as faster and cheaper than obtaining patents. This combination of speed and cost, in theory, makes utility models potentially attractive to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that cannot afford to obtain full patent protection. Similar considerations have also been raised as advantageous to innovators in low-income countries.

In virtually all societal domains, algorithmic systems, and AI more particularly, have made a grand entrance. Their growing impact renders it increasingly important to understand and assess the challenges and opportunities they raise – an endeavor to which this book aims to contribute. In this chapter, I start by putting the current “AI hype” into context. I emphasize the long history of human fascination with artificial beings; the fact that AI is but one of many powerful technologies that humanity has grappled with over time; and the fact that its uptake is inherently enabled by our societal condition. Subsequently, I introduce the chapters of this book, dealing with AI, ethics and philosophy (Part I); AI, law and policy (Part II); and AI across sectors (Part III). Finally, I discuss some conundrums faced by all scholars in this field, concerning the relationship between law, ethics and policy and their roles in AI governance; the juxtaposition between protection and innovation; and law’s (in)ability to regulate a continuously evolving technology. While their solutions are far from simple, I conclude there is great value in acknowledging the complexity of what is at stake and the need for more nuance in the AI governance debate.

This conversation centres around innovation in the financial services sector and the related regulatory supervision. Three ‘Techs’ are especially relevant: FinTech, RegTech and SupTech. ‘FinTech’ combines the words ‘financial’ and ‘technology’ and refers to technological innovation in the delivery of financial services and products. ‘RegTech’ joins ‘regulatory’ and ‘technology’ and describes the use of technology by businesses to manage and comply with regulatory requirements. ‘SupTech’, finally, unites the words ‘supervisory’ and ‘technology’ to refer to the use of technology by supervisory authorities such as financial services authorities to perform their functions. Particular approaches presented in this session include regulatory sandboxes to promote innovative technology in the financial sector, automated data analysis, the collection and analysis of granular data, digital forensics and internet monitoring systems. The speakers also address collaboration between financial institutions and supervisory authorities, for example, in the creation of data collection formats and data sharing.

Unlike most of the other jurisdictions discussed in this book, the United States (US) does not currently have, nor did it ever have, a utility model or other system of second-tier patent protection. This being said, discussion and debate over the institution of such a system in the US has been ongoing for more than a century. In this chapter, we discuss the history and current status of this debate, as well as alternative approaches that US agencies and legislators have taken to address the needs and concerns of small and medium-sized inventors.

The global landscape for existing utility model rights is a helpful starting point to the discussion on utility model innovation policy at the country-level as well as firm strategy. WIPO data indicates that approximately 3.0 million utility model applications were filed globally in 2022, a growth rate of 2.9% from the previous year and close to the global total of 3.5 million applications for standard patents. Only about one-half of the world’s countries provide for utility model systems, yet companies from around the world acquire these rights. Utility models are important players in the IP environment, and the unique qualities of the system and differential representation require specific analysis. In this chapter, we review existing empirical data and present additional data regarding UM filings and litigation worldwide. Our purpose is to provide background and context for the more detailed discussion in the remaining chapters in this book.

This chapter starts by providing historical perspective on the evolution of the Polish regulatory framework for the protection of utility models. Interestingly, the draft IPL takes us to legislative solutions already tested in the past. One might even say nihil novi sub sole (there is nothing new under the sun). The chapter presents data about the functioning of the regime currently in force. This is followed by a more general discussion, drawing on experience from other jurisdictions, of how various aspects of the regulatory framework might affect the ability of the system to promote innovation. Then, the current legislative framework is presented against the backdrop of the solutions proposed in the draft IPL.

Work occupies a significant portion of our lives, providing not only financial stability, but also structure, social interaction, and a sense of purpose. In addition, many jobs contribute to society in a beneficial way. While some jobs offer intrinsic satisfaction and personal growth, others may cause stress and burnout. Meaningful work promotes cognitive health by stimulating problem-solving, critical thinking, and learning. Engaging in social interactions at work enhances emotional intelligence and fosters collaboration, creativity, and innovation. Moreover, work contributes to cognitive resilience and may even reduce the risk of dementia in later life. It’s crucial to acknowledge and manage workplace stress through strategies such as maintaining work–life balance, seeking social support, and setting boundaries. This is particularly important considering the increase in hybrid working. Employers play a key role in creating supportive work environments that prioritize employee wellbeing. Overall, meaningful work enriches our lives, promotes cognitive vitality, and contributes to a fulfilling and balanced lifestyle.

Unlike the preceding chapters, which focus on the democratic and fiscal costs of state government, Chapter 5 addresses the offsetting direct benefits that states and/or federalism have been claimed to bring. The two most popular such defenses tend to be the diffusion of government power and the ability of states to tailor laws and policies to the demands of their respective populations, but there are several others as well. The discussion here evaluates those defenses. It concludes that, despite their facial appeal, the various defenses turn out to be either very minor or, while significant, replicable at least as well by the national government in some cases and local governments or inter-government partnerships in others.

In this chapter, we introduce the NuLawLab’s pedagogical activities and how dignity has played out in the classroom and experiential learning as a method, core value, and outcome. This chapter details the role of the laboratory model in making the connection between real-world problems and legal education, and the NuLawLab’s application of that concept, which focuses on actively and explicitly making connections among scholarship, community projects, and classrooms. To further our work in teaching legal design, we strive to keep our teaching strategies straightforward and accessible, making legal design available to a broader range of students. We’re determined to explore every avenue to expand legal design’s reach and integration into legal education. We aim to collaborate across institutions to elevate the entire field and establish a more innovative legal design community. These goals align with our commitment to fostering a more inclusive, diverse, and inventive legal design community that empowers students to address the intricate challenges of the legal system.

As legal design, technology, and innovation initiatives proliferate, more academic institutions are developing and launching certificates, concentrations, and full-fledged degree programs focused on legal innovation, design, and related subjects. Parallel to that promising development are the increased calls for the professionalization of legal design. This chapter posits that adopting a guild mentality toward legal design would unwisely curtail the rapid proliferation of this interdisciplinary movement, resulting in fewer practitioners and far less impact in both the short and long term. It proposes instead the embrace of an expansive identification of who is a “legal designer”: any creative soul with an interest in improving our justice system.