FREE TOOL LAUNCHED! CALCULATE RENEWAL FEES FOR YOUR PATENT FAMILY INSTANTLY
Try now
This article was adapted from a conversation between András Jókúti, Director of the Patent and Technology Law Division at WIPO, and David Breitenbach, CCO at PatentRenewal.com, on Talk IP to me.
For the full discussion, listen to the episode on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts.
_____
This article was adapted from a conversation between András Jókúti, Director of the Patent and Technology Law Division at WIPO, and David Breitenbach, CCO at PatentRenewal.com, on Talk IP to me.
For the full discussion, listen to the episode on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts.
András Jókúti is the Director of the Patent and Technology Law Division at WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization. Before joining WIPO in Geneva, he served as Director-General for Legal Affairs at the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office and worked across ministries, universities, and international policy spaces as an IP legal advisor.
In this article, András shares his perspective on how intellectual property systems evolve, why AI is putting new pressure on the patent system, and why global IP policy must balance technological change with the different needs of WIPO member states.
The article also explores the role of standard essential patents, the importance of transparency and dialogue, and one central idea from the conversation: intellectual property is not the goal in itself. It is a tool that must remain relevant, practical, and fit for purpose.
Intellectual property is often misunderstood.
Many people see patents, trademarks, and other IP rights as the end goal. But from my perspective, that framing misses the real purpose of the system.
IP is not a value in itself. Intellectual property is a tool for economic development. It is a mechanism designed to encourage innovation, support businesses, and create incentives for technological progress. If we lose sight of that purpose, the system risks becoming disconnected from the reality it is meant to serve.
At WIPO, much of our work revolves around helping countries build and adapt IP systems that reflect their own economic realities, innovation priorities, and levels of development. There is no universal blueprint that works everywhere. A patent system that supports innovation in one economy may not function the same way in another.
That is why our role is not to impose a single model, but to help member states understand their options and make informed policy choices.
Today, that conversation is becoming even more important because of artificial intelligence.
Much of the public discussion around AI and patents focuses on science-fiction-style scenarios where machines autonomously invent without human involvement.
I believe this framing is misleading.
The real question is not what happens when a robot autonomously invents. The real question is to what extent we still require human contribution.
AI is already integrated into innovation processes across industries. It assists researchers, accelerates discovery, supports engineering workflows, and increasingly contributes to the development of inventions themselves.
This creates new challenges for patent systems around the world.
For example:
These are not hypothetical questions anymore. Patent offices, policymakers, courts, and businesses are already confronting them. In the patent field, AI raises questions around subject matter eligibility, computer-implemented inventions, sufficient disclosure, training data, and the extent to which an AI-based invention can be reproduced by a person skilled in the art.
At the same time, AI is also changing how IP offices themselves operate.
Patent offices are increasingly using AI for classification, prior art search, administrative support, fee monitoring, and user-facing tools such as chatbots. In other words, AI is now involved in creating inventions, evaluating inventions, and administering the system itself.
That creates a fascinating and complex feedback loop.
One challenge policymakers face is that AI evolves much faster than international governance systems.
This is not unique to intellectual property, but the gap becomes especially visible here.
At the moment, we are still very far from any kind of binding international AI framework in the patent field. The reason is not a lack of interest. It is that international policy development requires careful dialogue, shared understanding, and agreement between countries with very different needs and priorities.
There are two important reasons for this.
First, the technology itself changes rapidly. By the time policymakers fully understand one development, the landscape may already have shifted again.
Second, international cooperation naturally moves more slowly. WIPO works with 194 member states, each with different legal traditions, economic priorities, and policy concerns. Reaching global alignment on emerging technologies takes time. In some cases, treaty-making can last decades.
That does not mean the work is not happening. It means the work, at this stage, is more about dialogue, shared experience, identifying policy issues, and building common understanding than rushing toward a binding treaty.
This is important because premature policy can create more problems than it solves.
One issue that deserves more attention is the difference between developed and developing economies.
For highly industrialized countries, AI may represent a new frontier of innovation. These countries often have the infrastructure, capital, research capacity, and technical expertise needed to benefit from rapid technological change.
But for developing countries and least developed countries, the picture can look different.
If a country is still building basic patent administration capacity, the emergence of AI can create anxiety. There is a legitimate concern that the technological gap between different regions could become even wider.
That is why the international community needs to be careful.
The goal should not be to create a system that only the most industrialized economies can use effectively. Any future policy direction should also help developing countries benefit from AI, strengthen their own innovation ecosystems, and use IP systems in a way that supports economic development.
AI could create opportunities. But those opportunities must be made accessible.
AI has made one thing very clear: the IP system is more vulnerable to technological change than many people assumed.
The IP system does not need to exist simply because it has always existed. It needs to remain relevant. If it becomes obsolete, then we have to ask why we should maintain it.
This is one of the central challenges for the coming years.
If we want intellectual property to continue supporting innovation, economic development, and business growth, then we must be willing to adapt it. The purpose is not to preserve the system for its own sake. The purpose is to keep it useful.
That requires continuous discussion between governments, policymakers, IP offices, companies, universities, innovators, and other stakeholders.
Another area where WIPO has become more active is standard essential patents.
Standard essential patents, or SEPs, sit at the intersection of patent law, standardization, competition, technology, and business. They are especially important because they relate to the standards that allow devices and technologies to work together.
Think of connectivity standards such as 4G, 5G, Bluetooth, and WiFi. Without standards, many of the technologies we use every day would not be interoperable.
But when companies contribute patented technology to a standard, another issue appears. If a patent is essential to implementing that standard, other companies need access to it in order to make compliant products.
That is where licensing becomes central.
SEP holders are expected to license their patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. In theory, that sounds simple. In practice, it is often difficult because parties may disagree on what a fair and reasonable royalty actually means.
This is why standard essential patents can become contentious. But it is also why dialogue, transparency, and practical tools matter so much.
WIPO does not decide what a fair licensing rate should be. Instead, our role is to contribute to the global conversation, support transparency, provide platforms for dialogue, and offer services such as mediation and arbitration through WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Center.
The objective is not to solve every dispute overnight. The objective is to make the field less opaque and less contentious over time.
In the SEP space, litigation often receives the most attention. Court cases make headlines. But the commercial reality is more nuanced. Many licensing agreements are concluded through negotiation rather than litigation.
Still, the risk of disputes can be intimidating, especially for smaller companies.
This is why initiatives such as the WIPO SEP-related mediation pledge are important. The idea is to provide reassurance, particularly for SMEs in the Internet of Things field, that mediation can be used before litigation becomes the first resort.
Mediation is not a perfect solution to every problem. It also has limitations, including confidentiality, which can be useful for the parties but less helpful from a transparency perspective.
But it can reduce unnecessary conflict.
A healthier future would be one where disputes are less dominant, licensing terms are supported by clearer economic rationale, and more resources go toward innovation and product development rather than lawsuits.
Despite the challenges, I remain hopeful.
In recent years, WIPO member states have been able to come together and conclude international treaties in the field of intellectual property. In today’s geopolitical environment, that matters. It shows that multilateral dialogue is still possible.
That does not mean we should expect a new treaty every year. That is not the point.
The point is to keep the conversation open.
The future of intellectual property will depend on our ability to maintain constructive dialogue, even when countries have different priorities and interests. It will also depend on our willingness to break large, abstract challenges into concrete policy questions that can actually be addressed.
This is especially important with AI.
General statements about AI will not bring us closer to solutions. We need to separate the issues, understand them clearly, and deal with them one by one.
For me, the most important question is not whether intellectual property will survive technological change.
The better question is whether it will continue to serve its purpose.
IP should support innovation. It should help businesses grow. It should create incentives for development. It should help countries build stronger innovation ecosystems. And it should remain flexible enough to respond when technology changes the conditions around it.
AI, standard essential patents, global policy discussions, and the needs of developing economies all point to the same conclusion:
The IP system cannot stand still.
If we want it to keep delivering value, we must keep asking whether it is still fit for purpose. And when the answer is uncertain, we must be willing to adapt.
_____
This article was adapted from a conversation between András Jókúti, Director of the Patent and Technology Law Division at WIPO, and David Breitenbach, CCO at PatentRenewal.com, on Talk IP to me.
For the full discussion, listen to the episode on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts.
Interested in a free IP renewal consultation? Benchmark your current IP renewal setup and costs against market standards.
.png)
.png)
