Challenges and countermeasures of intellectual property protection in the era of digital economy

summary

With the rapid development of digital technology, intellectual property protection is facing unprecedented challenges. Issues such as the ownership of AI-generated content, the validity of blockchain technology, and legal conflicts in cross-border data flows are reconstructing the traditional intellectual property protection system. Through the analysis of typical cases and legal practices, this paper reveals the core contradictions of intellectual property protection in the era of digital economy, and puts forward suggestions for constructing a multi-dimensional collaborative governance mechanism, in order to provide reference for improving China's intellectual property legal system.

Keywords: digital economy; Intellectual property; Artificial intelligence; Blockchain; Cross-border data flows

I. Introduction

The digital economy has become a core driver of global economic growth. According to the statistics of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the number of global digital technology patent applications will account for 42% in 2023, of which artificial intelligence, blockchain, big data and other fields will grow significantly. However, the innovative nature of digital technology has had an impact on the traditional intellectual property system, such as the copyrightability of algorithm-generated content, the definition of ownership of data elements, and jurisdictional conflicts in cross-border data flows, which urgently need legal responses. Based on China's intellectual property legal practice and international experience, this paper discusses the challenges and countermeasures of intellectual property protection in the era of digital economy.

II. Core Challenges of Intellectual Property Protection in the Era of Digital Economy

2.1 Disputes over the ownership of rights in AI-generated content

The determination of copyright in AI-generated content (AIGC) is the focus of current legal practice. For example, in Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun Technology, the court held that the financial reports generated by the Dreamwriter software developed by the plaintiff constituted works, but did not clarify the ownership of rights. This case illustrates the law's vague definition of the criterion of "human creative contribution". Internationally, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act proposes a regulatory framework for "high-risk AI systems", but does not address the copyright issues of AIGC. The U.S. Copyright Office explicitly refuses to register copyrights for purely AI-generated content.

2.2 Evidence Preservation Effect and Judicial Application of Blockchain Technology

Blockchain technology is widely used in electronic evidence preservation because of its immutability, but the determination of its legal effect is controversial. In the first case of blockchain evidence preservation in Hangzhou Internet Court, the court confirmed the legal effect of blockchain evidence preservation for the first time, but pointed out that the triple criteria of "authenticity, legitimacy and relevance" must be met. However, in practice, there are still problems such as inconsistent technical standards and doubtful credibility of nodes. For example, an enterprise uses a private chain to store trade secrets, and the evidence is excluded by the court due to a dispute over the control of the node.

2.3 Conflict of Laws in Cross-Border Data Flows

The digital economy has driven the normalization of cross-border data flows, but the legal differences in different countries have exacerbated the complexity of intellectual property protection. For example, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires data to be stored locally, while the U.S. Clarification of Lawful Use of Data Abroad Act (CLOUD Act) asserts data jurisdiction extension. Although China's Data Security Law clarifies the security assessment system for cross-border data transfer, how to balance data sovereignty and commercial interests in cross-border intellectual property disputes still needs to be explored.

3. Practical exploration and shortcomings of intellectual property protection in China

3.1 Innovation at the legislative level

China has adopted documents such as the Guidelines for Patent Examination (2023) and the Provisions on Regulating Patent Application (2023) to strengthen the protection of digital technology innovation. For example, algorithms and business methods are included in the scope of patent protection, and the criteria for identifying "technical solutions" are clarified. However, the current law is still lagging behind in responding to new issues such as AIGC and data ownership.

3.2 Breakthroughs in judicial practice

The case of a communications company sued for abuse of market dominance issued by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court proposes "bidding events" as the definition standard for the relevant market, which provides a new idea for anti-monopoly in the digital economy. However, in judicial practice, problems such as the inconsistency of the rules for the identification of electronic data and the ambiguity of the standards for punitive damages still restrict the effectiveness of intellectual property protection.

3.3 Strengthening of administrative supervision

The Administrative Reconsideration Procedures and the Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes revised by the State Intellectual Property Office have improved the efficiency of administrative law enforcement. For example, Jiangsu Province has promulgated the Measures for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights at Exhibitions, which clarifies the review obligations of exhibition organizers. However, the linkage mechanism between administrative supervision and judicial adjudication needs to be improved.

4. Coping strategies and suggestions

4.1 Establish a dynamically adjusted legal system

It is proposed to amend the Copyright Law and the Patent Law to clarify the rules for the attribution of rights in AIGC. For example, we can learn from the EU's "tool theory" position and treat AI as a creative tool, and the rights belong to the developer or user. At the same time, establish a data ownership registration system to clarify the boundaries of rights for data collection, processing, and use.

4.2 Improve technical standards and judicial rules

Promote the unification of technical standards for blockchain evidence preservation, formulate the "Technical Specifications for Electronic Data Evidence Preservation", and clarify the requirements for node credibility and data integrity. At the judicial level, we can learn from the experience of the "Hangzhou Internet Court" to establish guidelines for the review of blockchain evidence and refine the criteria for determining authenticity, legitimacy and relevance.

4.3 Strengthen international cooperation and coordination

Actively participate in the formulation of digital IP rules under the framework of WIPO, and promote the establishment of a "white list" mechanism for cross-border data flows. For example, mutual data recognition agreements can be signed with countries along the Belt and Road to clarify the security assessment standards for data export. At the same time, it will strengthen judicial cooperation with European and American countries, and establish a joint mediation mechanism for cross-border intellectual property disputes.

4.4 Enhance the compliance ability of enterprises

Guide enterprises to establish intellectual property management systems, for example, through the ISO 56005 "Innovation Management – Intellectual Property Management Guidelines" certification, to improve the level of protection of digital technology innovation. At the same time, strengthen the training of enterprise data compliance to avoid legal risks caused by cross-border data flow.

V. Conclusions

The protection of intellectual property rights in the era of digital economy needs to seek a balance between technological innovation and legal regulation. China should be based on local practice and learn from international experience to build a collaborative governance mechanism covering legislation, justice, administration and enterprises. In the future, with the deepening application of artificial intelligence, blockchain and other technologies, intellectual property protection will face more challenges, and it is necessary to continue to improve the legal system to meet the needs of the development of the digital economy.

References

Database of regulations of the State Intellectual Property Office

Compilation of Typical Cases of Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2024)

Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (2023 Amendment)

WIPO IP Policy Trends in the Digital Economy (2024)

EU Artificial Intelligence Act (2024)