The Evolution of Ip Law in The Age of Ai: Landmark 2024 Judgments and Their Implications

The year 2024 emerged as a defining moment in the intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law, witnessing unprecedented judicial interventions that reshaped the legal landscape. As generative AI technologies proliferated across industries, courts worldwide grappled with fundamental questions about creativity, ownership, and protection in the digital age. From the corridors of Indian High Courts to international tribunals, landmark judgments established critical precedents that will guide IP law's evolution for decades to come.

The convergence of artificial intelligence with traditional intellectual property frameworks created novel legal challenges that existing statutes had never anticipated. Courts found themselves at the forefront of technological adaptation, balancing innovation imperatives against established rights protections. This comprehensive analysis examines how 2024's watershed judgments fundamentally transformed patent law interpretation, copyright enforcement, and personality rights protection, establishing a new paradigm for AI governance in the intellectual property domain.

Revolutionary Patent Law Interpretations: The Technical Contribution Paradigm

The Idemia Precedent: Redefining Algorithmic Patentability

The Madras High Court's decision in Idemia vs. The Controller General of Patents represents perhaps the most significant judicial intervention in Indian patent law's modern history. This landmark ruling fundamentally challenged the traditional interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, which has historically excluded mathematical methods and algorithms from patentability. The court's nuanced approach established that algorithmic innovations demonstrating clear technical contributions should not face blanket exclusion from patent protection.^[1]

Idemia's cryptographic innovation addressed a critical vulnerability in encryption systems—timing attacks that exploit variable execution times in cryptographic operations. By incorporating simplified elliptical curves and implementing constant-time encryption processes, the invention demonstrated what the court termed a substantial "technical effect". The Madras High Court emphasized that Section 3(k) should function as a targeted exclusion rather than a comprehensive bar against all mathematical methods, focusing instead on whether inventions contribute meaningful technical advancement.^[1]

This precedential shift resonated throughout India's patent ecosystem, influencing subsequent decisions and creating what legal scholars now term the "technical contribution test." The court's reasoning established that mathematical algorithms embedded within systems that enhance functionality or hardware performance constitute patentable subject matter, provided they demonstrate demonstrable technical effects beyond ordinary computational processes.^[1]

The Blackberry Paradigm: Clarifying Software Implementation Standards

The Delhi High Court's parallel Blackberry judgments further refined algorithmic patentability understanding, creating nuanced distinctions between pure instructions and software implementations. In the first Blackberry case, claims directed purely toward instructional sequences were deemed non-patentable algorithms under Section 3(k). However, the second case demonstrated that software implementation within claims could overcome exclusions when demonstrating enhanced system functionality.^[2]

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

These dual decisions established that patent applicants must demonstrate their invention's overall method and system contributes directly to specific, credible technical effects transcending general computer functioning. The courts required inventive contributions that improve system functionality while achieving innovative technical advantages clearly distinguished from ordinary operations expected of conventional systems.^[3]

The Blackberry precedents built upon earlier foundations in cases like Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Lava International v. TLM Ericsson, crystallizing principles that inventions incorporating algorithms within systems enhancing functionality or hardware component performance constitute patentable subject matter.^[3]

Copyright Law's AI Transformation: Fair Use and Training Data

International Divergence in AI Training Approaches

The global legal community witnessed significant divergence in approaches to AI training and copyright protection throughout 2024. United States federal courts increasingly embraced fair use defenses for AI training practices, with landmark decisions in cases involving major AI companies establishing transformative use precedents. However, European jurisdictions maintained more restrictive approaches, emphasizing rights holders' prerogatives and requiring explicit consent for training data utilization.^[4][5][6]

The European Union's AI Act, entering force on August 1, 2024, introduced comprehensive copyright compliance requirements for General Purpose AI providers. Article 53 mandates GPAI providers comply with existing copyright law and text and data mining exceptions under the Copyright Directive. This regulatory framework requires transparency in training datasets, mandating providers publish detailed summaries of content used for training.^[6]

European approaches reflect more restrictive stances compared to US fair use doctrine, emphasizing rights holders' ability to opt out of AI training through machine-readable reservations. The Copyright Directive's TDM exceptions allow AI training under specific conditions, but rights holders can expressly reserve works against such use. This creates complex landscapes where AI developers must navigate both technical and legal challenges in assembling training datasets.^[6]

The Continuing Litigation Landscape

The Andersen v. Stability AI case continued progressing through 2024, with the Northern District of California allowing copyright infringement claims to proceed to discovery. Judge William Orrick's decision found both direct and induced infringement theories plausible, particularly noting Stability AI's CEO's statement about compressing massive image datasets into smaller files capable of "recreating" original images. This ongoing litigation represents broader legal battles over whether AI-generated outputs closely resembling training data constitute copyright infringement.^[7]

The case's progression to discovery phase signals courts' willingness to examine technical aspects of AI training and output generation processes. Judge Orrick's allowance of both direct and induced copyright infringement claims suggests judicial recognition that AI systems' relationship with training data may constitute copyright violations under specific circumstances.^[7]

Personality Rights Revolution: Protecting Human Identity in Digital Realms

The Arijit Singh Landmark: Comprehensive Digital Persona Protection

The Bombay High Court's decision in Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP established India's first comprehensive legal precedent addressing AI-generated content misuse and personality rights protection. Justice R.I. Chagla's interim order prohibited multiple entities from using Singh's voice, name, image, and personal attributes without consent, particularly through AI voice cloning technologies.^[8][9]

The court's ruling recognized celebrities' particular vulnerability to unauthorized AI content generation, stating that "what shocks the conscience of this Court is the manner in which celebrities, particularly performers such as the present plaintiff, are vulnerable to being targeted by unauthorized generative AI content". This decision established that personality rights encompass not only traditional attributes like name and image but also vocal styles, techniques, arrangements, interpretations, and mannerisms.^[9][8]

The Bombay High Court's order provided unprecedented specificity in defining protectable personality rights in the AI era. The court found Singh's personality rights extended to his voice, vocal style, vocal technique, vocal arrangements and interpretations, mannerisms, manner of singing, and signature. This comprehensive approach recognized that AI technologies can replicate subtle personality aspects that traditional legal frameworks had not previously addressed.^[10][8]

International Framework Development

The Singh case occurred within broader international contexts of emerging personality rights protection. The Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, signed in September 2024, established the first internationally binding treaty specifically addressing AI's impact on human rights. This convention requires signatories to implement measures ensuring AI systems respect human dignity and individual autonomy, including privacy rights and personal data protection.^[11]

The Convention introduces innovative regulatory mechanisms such as "regulatory sandboxes" for safe AI experimentation while maintaining rigorous oversight of high-risk AI systems. Countries must ensure AI systems posing threats to fundamental rights undergo enhanced scrutiny, creating risk-based frameworks for AI governance. This international framework complements national efforts like the Singh case in establishing comprehensive personality rights protection in the AI era.^[11]

Regulatory Evolution: Comprehensive AI Governance Frameworks

The EU AI Act: Pioneering Comprehensive Regulation

The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act represents the world's first comprehensive AI regulation, establishing risk-based approaches to AI governance with particular attention to high-risk systems impacting fundamental rights. The regulation prohibits certain AI applications including biometric categorization based on sensitive characteristics, emotion recognition in workplaces and schools, and social scoring systems.^[12]

The Act's personality rights protection operates through multiple mechanisms. High-risk AI systems must undergo rigorous risk assessment and implement appropriate fundamental rights safeguards. The regulation requires meaningful human oversight throughout AI system development, deployment, and operation, ensuring automated decision-making processes maintain human accountability. These provisions create comprehensive frameworks protecting personality rights while enabling beneficial AI innovation.^[13]

GDPR Integration and Enhanced Data Protection

The AI Act's integration with the General Data Protection Regulation creates layered protection for personality rights in AI contexts. GDPR's data subject rights—including access, rectification, erasure, and objection rights—apply directly to AI systems processing personal data. This creates specific obligations for AI developers to implement data architectures allowing tracing of personal data contributions and enabling individual rights enforcement.^[14][13]

The challenge of implementing data subject rights in AI systems, particularly large language models, remains complex. While individuals have clear rights to know how their data is used, technical difficulty in identifying specific personal data contributions in trained models creates practical enforcement challenges. The regulatory framework requires AI developers to explore technical solutions including anonymization, pseudonymization, and access controls to protect personal data while maintaining system functionality.^[14]

Global Convergence and Divergence: Comparative Judicial Approaches

International Variations in AI Copyright Treatment

The year 2024 revealed significant divergence in judicial approaches to AI and copyright across jurisdictions. While US courts embraced fair use defenses for AI training, other jurisdictions maintained more restrictive approaches. Chinese courts developed unique approaches to AI-generated content, with the Beijing Internet Court ruling that AI-generated images could qualify for copyright protection when users made intellectual contributions through prompt texts and parameter settings.^[15][16][4]

This contrasts sharply with US Copyright Office positions rejecting copyright registration for purely AI-generated works. The divergence in international approaches creates significant challenges for global AI development, requiring companies to navigate complex compliance requirements across multiple jurisdictions.^[16][17]

Technical Implementation and Legal Compliance Challenges

Data Governance and Transparency Requirements

The EU AI Act's transparency requirements for GPAI models created new compliance obligations for AI developers. Article 53 mandates providers create and regularly update technical documentation about model training and testing while sharing clear summaries of training data. These requirements aim to enable copyright holders to identify unauthorized use of their works and enforce rights more effectively.^[18][19]

The challenge of implementing transparency requirements reveals complex intersections of technical and legal considerations in AI development. The Act's requirement for "sufficiently detailed" summaries of training content must balance transparency goals with practical limitations of documenting massive datasets.^[6]

Rights Enforcement Technical Challenges

The practical implementation of data subject rights in AI systems remains technologically challenging. While GDPR grants individuals rights to access, rectify, and erase personal data, applying these rights to trained AI models requires innovative technical approaches. Organizations must develop data architectures enabling tracing personal data contributions while maintaining model functionality and performance.^[14]

The concept of "machine unlearning"—removing specific data influences from trained models—represents an emerging technical solution to rights enforcement challenges. However, current technical limitations mean complete data removal may require model retraining, creating significant cost and complexity barriers. This technological gap highlights ongoing tensions between legal rights and technical feasibility in AI governance.^[14]

Future Implications and Emerging Legal Paradigms

Innovation and Rights Balance

The 2024 landmark decisions create mixed signals for AI innovation and development. Favorable patent rulings in cases like Idemia provide significant protection for algorithmic innovations, potentially accelerating development by reducing legal uncertainty. However, expanded personality rights protection, exemplified by the Singh case, creates new compliance requirements for AI developers working with voice, image, and persona replication technologies.^[8][10][1]

The balance between innovation and rights protection requires ongoing refinement through additional litigation and regulatory development. The precedents established in 2024 provide robust foundations for navigating challenges ahead, but continued adaptation will be necessary as AI technologies evolve.^[2]

International Harmonization Imperatives

The divergent approaches to AI governance across jurisdictions create significant challenges for global AI development. While the EU emphasizes comprehensive regulation and rights protection, other jurisdictions maintain more permissive approaches focused on innovation. These differences require AI companies to navigate complex compliance requirements across multiple jurisdictions.^[17][12][15]

The emergence of international frameworks like the Council of Europe Convention on AI signals growing recognition of needs for harmonized approaches. However, implementing consistent global standards while respecting national legal traditions and innovation policies remains a significant challenge requiring continued international cooperation and diplomatic negotiation.^[11]

Conclusion: Charting the Legal Future of AI

The landmark intellectual property decisions of 2024 represent a critical inflection point in the relationship between law and artificial intelligence. From the Madras High Court's nuanced interpretation of algorithmic patentability in the Idemia case to the Bombay High Court's comprehensive personality rights protection in the Singh matter, these judgments demonstrate the legal system's capacity for thoughtful adaptation to technological change.

The year's developments reveal both promise and complexity in governing AI within existing intellectual property frameworks. The evolution of patent law through technical contribution tests, the emergence of comprehensive personality rights protection, and the development of sophisticated regulatory frameworks all demonstrate legal systems' abilities to develop nuanced approaches to complex technological challenges.

As we advance, the precedents established in 2024 will undoubtedly face continued testing and refinement. The transformation of IP law in the age of AI is far from complete, but these landmark judgments provide robust foundations for navigating future challenges. Through careful judicial interpretation, thoughtful regulatory development, and continued international cooperation, the legal system can continue adapting to ensure intellectual property law serves its essential function of promoting innovation while protecting creators and individuals in an AI-driven world.

The legal landscape emerging from 2024's developments suggests a future where AI governance operates through sophisticated, multi-layered frameworks that balance innovation imperatives with fundamental rights protection. This evolution represents not merely adaptation to new technologies, but a fundamental reimagining of how intellectual property law functions in an era where the boundaries between human and artificial creativity continue to blur.

Author: Prakhar Mishra, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References:

Puthrans. "INDIA- IP UPDATES - 2024 - 25." June 16, 2025. https://www.puthrans.com/inta2025/^[1]

World Intellectual Property Organization. "AI voice cloning: how a Bollywood veteran set a legal precedent." April 16, 2025. https://www.wipo.int/web/wipo-magazine/articles/ai-voice-cloning-how-a-bollywood-veteran-set-a-legal-precedent-73631^[8]

NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law. "Andersen v. Stability AI: The Landmark Case Unpacking the Copyright Risks of AI Image Generators." December 1, 2024. https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/andersen-v-stability-ai-the-landmark-case-unpacking-the-copyright-risks-of-ai-image-generators/^[7]

NDTV. "Court Gives Relief To Singer Arijit Singh, Says AI Mimicking Voice Violation Of Personality Rights." July 30, 2024. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/court-gives-relief-to-singer-arijit-singh-says-ai-mimicking-voice-violation-of-personality-rights-6232636^[9]

AZB Partners. "Bombay High Court Safeguards Celebrity Personality Rights in AI Era." October 29, 2024. https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/bombay-high-court-safeguards-celebrity-personality-rights-in-ai-era-arijit-singh-case/^[10]

SpicyIP. "A Look Back at India's Top IP Developments of 2024." December 30, 2024. https://spicyip.com/2024/12/a-look-back-at-indias-top-ip-developments-of-2024.html^[2]

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. "Invention that is a series of instructions does not meet the criteria for patent protection under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act." September 22, 2024. https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2024/09/invention-that-is-a-series-of-instructions-does-not-meet-the-criteria-for-patent-protection-under-section-3k-of-the-patents-act/^[3]

Oxford Academic. "Copyright and AI training data—transparency to the rescue?" March 20, 2025. https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/20/3/182/7922541^[19]

Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law. "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE LAW: SAFEGUARDING PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE." 2024. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE-AND-THE-LAW-SAFEGUARDING-PERSONALITY-RIGHTS-IN-THE-DIGITAL-AGE.pdf^[11]

EU Neighbours East. "AI in the EU: copyright ownership and liability dilemmas." May 21, 2024. https://euneighbourseast.eu/young-european-ambassadors/blog/ai-in-the-eu-copyright-ownership-and-liability-dilemmas/^[18]

INTA. "How the EU AI Act Supplements GDPR in the Protection of Personal Data." July 15, 2025. https://www.inta.org/perspectives/features/how-the-eu-ai-act-supplements-gdpr-in-the-protection-of-personal-data/^[13]

European Parliament Think Tank. "AI and copyright: The training of general‑purpose AI." April 27, 2025. https://epthinktank.eu/2025/04/28/ai-and-copyright-the-training-of-general‑purpose-ai/^[6]

TechGDPR. "Respecting Data Subject Rights in AI: A Practical Guide for Businesses." July 8, 2025. https://techgdpr.com/blog/data-subject-rights-in-ai-a-practical-guide-for-businesses/^[14]

Vajira Mandravi. "AI and Copyright Law, US Courts Back Fair Use in AI Training." July 2, 2025. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/ai-and-copyright-law/^[15]

European Parliament. "Artificial Intelligence Act: MEPs adopt landmark law." March 12, 2024. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240308IPR19015/artificial-intelligence-act-meps-adopt-landmark-law^[12]

HSF Kramer. "US federal judges back AI training as fair use — but questions remain." June 29, 2025. https://www.hsfkramer.com/insights/2025-06/federal-judges-back-ai-training-as-fair-use-but-questions-remain^[4]

Ropes & Gray. "A Tale of Three Cases: How Fair Use Is Playing Out in AI Copyright Lawsuits." July 6, 2025. https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/07/a-tale-of-three-cases-how-fair-use-is-playing-out-in-ai-copyright-lawsuits^[5]

GCSEL. "Digital Identity Ownership in India: Comparing Celebrity and Civilian Rights." August 31, 2025. https://www.gcsel.com/post/digital-identity-ownership-in-india-comparing-celebrity-and-civilian-rights^[17]

Cooley. "Copyright Ownership of Generative AI Outputs Varies Around the World." January 28, 2024. https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2024/2024-01-29-copyright-ownership-of-generative-ai-outputs-varies-around-the-world^[16]

Links:

1.     https://www.puthrans.com/inta2025/    

2.     https://spicyip.com/2024/12/a-look-back-at-indias-top-ip-developments-of-2024.html  

3.     https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2024/09/invention-that-is-a-series-of-instructions-does-not-meet-the-criteria-for-patent-protection-under-section-3k-of-the-patents-act/  

4.     https://www.hsfkramer.com/insights/2025-06/federal-judges-back-ai-training-as-fair-use-but-questions-remain  

5.     https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/07/a-tale-of-three-cases-how-fair-use-is-playing-out-in-ai-copyright-lawsuits 

6.     https://epthinktank.eu/2025/04/28/ai-and-copyright-the-training-of-general‑purpose-ai/    

7.     https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/andersen-v-stability-ai-the-landmark-case-unpacking-the-copyright-risks-of-ai-image-generators/  

8.     https://www.wipo.int/web/wipo-magazine/articles/ai-voice-cloning-how-a-bollywood-veteran-set-a-legal-precedent-73631    

9.     https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/court-gives-relief-to-singer-arijit-singh-says-ai-mimicking-voice-violation-of-personality-rights-6232636  

10.  https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/bombay-high-court-safeguards-celebrity-personality-rights-in-ai-era-arijit-singh-case/  

11.  https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE-AND-THE-LAW-SAFEGUARDING-PERSONALITY-RIGHTS-IN-THE-DIGITAL-AGE.pdf   

12.  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240308IPR19015/artificial-intelligence-act-meps-adopt-landmark-law  

13.  https://www.inta.org/perspectives/features/how-the-eu-ai-act-supplements-gdpr-in-the-protection-of-personal-data/  

14.  https://techgdpr.com/blog/data-subject-rights-in-ai-a-practical-guide-for-businesses/    

15.  https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/ai-and-copyright-law/  

16.  https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2024/2024-01-29-copyright-ownership-of-generative-ai-outputs-varies-around-the-world  

17.  https://www.gcsel.com/post/digital-identity-ownership-in-india-comparing-celebrity-and-civilian-rights  

18.  https://euneighbourseast.eu/young-european-ambassadors/blog/ai-in-the-eu-copyright-ownership-and-liability-dilemmas/ 

19.  https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/20/3/182/7922541 

20.  https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2024/03/scope-of-business-method-inventions-under-section-3k/ 

21.  https://www.intepat.com/blog/intellectual-property-judgments-2024-key-legal-developments 

22.  https://www.lexorbis.com/the-legal-challenges-in-software-inventions-insights-into-section-3k-of-indian-patents-act-1970/ 

23.  https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/blogs/wilmerhale-privacy-and-cybersecurity-law/20240827-patent-protection-for-ai-creations-landmark-decision-by-the-german-federal-court-of-justice 

24.  https://ssrana.in/articles/demystifying-section-3k-of-the-indian-patents-act/ 

25.  https://spicyip.com/2024/08/synthetic-singers-and-voice-theft-bomhc-protects-arijit-singhs-personality-rights-part-i.html 

26.  https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/data-technology/china-a-landmark-court-ruling-on-copyright-protection-for-ai-generated-works 

27.  https://kankrishme.com/delhi-high-court-reiterates-limits-on-patentability-of-software-based-inventions/ 

28.  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/arijit-singh-wins-landmark-case-against-ai-voice-use-his-srivastava-vzs0f 

29.  https://www.indialaw.in/blog/civil/voice-cloning-ai-bombay-high-court-case/ 

30.  https://www.aippi.org/news/ai-as-an-inventor-of-patents-ip-high-court-judgment-and-the-2025-ip-strategic-program/