Innovation Law Insights

Podcast

When the Super Bowl meets AI – Eagles win, legal debates arise

The Philadelphia Eagles claimed the Super Bowl, but AI-powered ads stole the show, raising fresh legal debates around data usage, copyright, and emerging regulations on AI. Tune in as Giulio Coraggio, technology and data lawyer from global law firm DLA Piper, breaks down the tech, the law, and what it all means for the future of advertising. Listen to the episode here.

 

Data Protection and Cybersecurity

Data Act: Level of enrichment of data to be considered inferred or derived

The European Commission has recently published an updated version of the FAQs on the Data Act, offering further clarification on the concepts of inferred or derived data.

The Data Act, a key component of the European Data Strategy, is a Regulation designed to enhance the EU’s data economy and promote a competitive data market. It seeks to make data – particularly industrial data –more accessible and usable, fostering data-driven innovation and increasing data availability.

Inferred and derived data under the Data Act

The Data Act’s data-sharing obligations primarily apply to raw and pre-processed data. Raw data refers to data automatically generated without any additional processing. Pre-processed data, on the other hand, includes data collected from a single sensor or a network of sensors, processed to determine a specific physical quantity or quality – such as temperature, pressure, liquid level, position, acceleration, or speed – so it becomes comprehensible for broader use cases.

Inferred and derived data is explicitly excluded from the Data Act’s sharing obligations. This means that companies don’t have to share this data with users or third parties. A key issue is the distinction between inferred/derived data and pre-processed data.

The latest version of the FAQ provides further clarity on this matter, emphasizing that the level of data enrichment plays a crucial role in determining whether data falls under the sharing obligations. Under the Data Act, users have the right to receive, use, and port data they have (co-)generated. This right extends to raw and pre-processed data, including associated metadata. But the Data Act also aims to protect incentives for investing in data technologies that enhance or transform data, provide additional insights, or enable autonomous decision-making.

To differentiate between raw/pre-processed data and inferred/derived data, the Data Act refers to key factors such as: “substantial modification,” “substantial investments in cleaning and transforming the data,” and “proprietary and complex algorithms.” According to the updated FAQ, companies should assess whether their data has undergone substantial modifications or significant investments in data processing, particularly through proprietary algorithms, to determine whether it qualifies as inferred or derived data.

According to the new version of the FAQs, the Data Act's objective is to enable processing of data by a wide array of actors in the data economy so shared data should be easily usable and understandable by entities other than those who generated it. At the same time, the need to interpret raw data shouldn’t translate into an obligation on the data holder to make substantial investments in cleaning, transforming or reformatting data to make it understandable. Instead, the European Commission expects users and third parties to have a reasonable level of technical competence to interpret the data provided.

The data sharing requirements under the Data Act

With the Data Act set to apply on September 12, 2025, companies providing connected products and related services must assess whether they comply with its data-sharing requirements. This includes evaluating whether data obtained, generated, or collected through their products or services qualifies as raw, pre-processed, or inferred/derived data.

The Data Act includes additional exemptions, such as cases involving trade secrets or specific security requirements. Companies have to thoroughly analyze the categories of data they process to determine their obligations under the Data Act. And, where necessary, they should establish appropriate mechanisms for granting either direct or indirect access to data in compliance with the regulation.

Author: Roxana Smeria

 

Intellectual Property

European Commission withdraws proposal for Regulation on SEPs

On February 11, the European Commission published its 2025 Work Programme, in which it announced the withdrawal of the Proposal for a Regulation on Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) due to the lack of agreement between member states in the Council of the European Union.

SEPs are a type of patent that protects technology that’s essential to a standard. Because of their essential nature, these exclusive rights must be granted on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms when they’re the subject of license agreements.

The proposal, which has now been withdrawn, aimed to increase transparency, predictability and efficiency in the licensing system for standard essential patents.

SEPs, which first appeared in the telecommunications sector and in particular in 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi, HEVC and AVC technologies, have gradually spread to other sectors, including life sciences. Just think of systems for measuring and monitoring physiological parameters or telemedicine: many of the devices using these technologies are protected by S EPs.

The proposal, which was issued in April 2023, immediately became the subject of a strong debate among stakeholders, who immediately raised a number of concerns, particularly regarding one of the key points of the new legislation: the creation of a center of competence at the EUIPO.

According to the text proposed by the Commission, the EU Intellectual Property Office would have had to manage the procedures for verifying the essentiality of SEPs and determine FRAND conditions. But, according to many stakeholders, the EUIPO, which has extensive experience in the field of trademarks and copyright, would instead have found itself dealing with overly complex patent issues between SEPs and FRAND. Giving the EUIPO this role would also have taken away some of the Unified Patent Court’s competence, such as patents belonging to class H of the International Patent Classification (IPC), which includes inventions in telecommunications sector.

The halt in the negotiations certainly won’t be without consequences and will mean it’s a very long time before a new agreement is reached. Most observers believe it’s unlikely that the current Commission, which took office on December 1 last year, will make another attempt to legislate on SEPs, so new legislation is likely at the end of this legislative term.

Author: Noemi Canova

UPC and Long-Arm Jurisdiction: Düsseldorf Division takes a favorable stance

On January 28, the Local Division of Düsseldorf issued a significant decision on the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in a case involving two well-known companies in the photographic industry.

The dispute concerned the infringement of a European patent validated in Germany and the UK, as well as the invalidity of its German portion. The proceedings were brought before the UPC as the defendants are based in Germany.

Before addressing the issues of (in)validity and infringement, the court examined certain procedural aspects, affirming its competence to rule on the infringement of the UK portion of the patent, provided that the defendant is based in one of the UPC Agreement (UPCA) member states.

This is a noteworthy decision, as it paves the way for the UPC to potentially extend its jurisdiction to infringement cases concerning portions of European patents valid in non-UPCA states, as long as the defendant is domiciled in a UPC member state.

However, while no request for invalidity of the UK portion of the patent was made in this case, the court clarified that it wouldn’t have jurisdiction to declare its invalidity. This is in line with the exclusive jurisdiction principle established by Article 24 of the EU Brussels I bis Regulation.

Since no invalidity action was filed in the UK, the court didn’t clarify whether, in such a scenario, it would’ve had to refer the entire dispute concerning the UK portion of the patent to UK courts under Article 24 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, or whether it could still rule on infringement matters. Further guidance on this issue is expected from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the upcoming BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22) ruling.

Authors: Massimiliano Tiberio, Camila Francesca Crisci

 

Technology Media and Telecommunication

European Commission publishes report “Towards a European policy for technology infrastructures”

On February 14, the European Commission published the report titled “Towards a European policy for technology infrastructures: Building bridges to competitiveness.” It presented the findings of the Commission Expert Group on Technology Infrastructures (EGTI), established in 2023 to analyze, support, and provide recommendations for improving technology infrastructure in Europe.

The report is divided into eight sections.

The first section contains recommendations made by the EGTI following studies and consultations with various stakeholders in the sector. Specifically, these recommendations advocate for:

• formalizing a definition of “technology infrastructures”: the EGTI proposes defining technology infrastructures as “facilities, equipment, capabilities and resources required to develop, test, upscale and validate technology. They enable and accelerate technological innovations towards societal/market adoption, fostering industrial competitiveness. They provide a wide range of capacities and services from pre-competitive applied research services, through demonstration and validation of technology, up to small-scale production. They include, amongst others, test beds, demonstration and testing facilities, pilot lines or living labs, usually embedded within non-profit research and technology organisations, universities active in technology fields or technology centres, which are open to private and public users. They can be public, semi-public or privately owned, physical or digital.” EGTI recommends using this definition, once approved by member states, and including it in all EU and national legislative and policy acts;
• improving access to technology infrastructures for companies, especially SMEs and startups by simplifying access procedures to technology infrastructures and increasing funding opportunities;
• developing an effective investments prioritization mechanism in European technology infrastructures: the EGTI suggests that the mechanism should address the needs of technologies of strategic importance for the EU’s competitiveness and align strategies for their availability with the current and future needs of users and operators of technology infrastructure;
• establish, at EU level, a robust governance framework for technology infrastructures, which would define investment priorities and coordinate funding for investments in technology infrastructures;
• establish funding programs dedicated to technology infrastructures at the European and national levels.

After outlining the context of the EGTI's work (Section 2), the report provides an overview of the various types of existing infrastructures (Section 3), distinguishing between research, technological, and industrial infrastructures. These differ by their functionalities. Research infrastructures primarily aim to enable scientific and applied research progress; technological infrastructures specifically support the industry in technological development, upscaling, testing, and validation; and industrial infrastructures are primarily focused on developing a specific industrial product, service, or process.

Section 4 of the Report provides a summary of the EGTI's analyses regarding users' needs in relation to the services provided through technology infrastructures. The full version of these analyses is available in a separate analytical report, “Analytical Report on TI User Needs.”

Section 5 addresses the theme of improving access to technology infrastructure, which is one of the five recommendations in the first section.

The penultimate section delves into the topic of coordination and prioritization of investments related to technology infrastructures, which is also part of one of the five recommendations developed by the EGTI.

The report concludes with several proposals from the EGTI for “pilot” actions aimed at enhancing the service delivery of technology infrastructures. Among these are proposals related, for instance, to developing and implementing a 6G network and of AI algorithms, and initiatives in the automotive, carbon, and chemical technologies sectors.

Authors: Flaminia Perna, Matilde Losa

---

Innovation Law Insights is compiled by DLA Piper lawyers, coordinated by Edoardo Bardelli, Carolina Battistella, Carlotta Busani, Giorgia Carneri, Noemi Canova, Gabriele Cattaneo, Maria Rita Cormaci, Camila Crisci, Cristina Criscuoli, Tamara D’Angeli, Chiara D’Onofrio, Federico Maria Di Vizio, Nadia Feola, Laura Gastaldi, Vincenzo Giuffré, Nicola Landolfi, Giacomo Lusardi, Valentina Mazza, Lara Mastrangelo, Maria Chiara Meneghetti, Deborah Paracchini, Maria Vittoria Pessina, Marianna Riedo, Tommaso Ricci, Rebecca Rossi, Roxana Smeria, Massimiliano Tiberio, Federico Toscani,  Federico Toscani, Giulia Zappaterra.

Articles concerning Telecommunications are curated by Massimo D’Andrea, Flaminia Perna, Matilde Losa and Arianna Porretti.

For further information on the topics covered, please contact the partners Giulio Coraggio, Marco de Morpurgo, Gualtiero Dragotti, Alessandro Ferrari, Roberto Valenti, Elena Varese, Alessandro Boso Caretta, Ginevra Righini.

Learn about Prisca AI Compliance, the legal tech tool developed by DLA Piper to assess the maturity of AI systems against key regulations and technical standards here.

You can learn more about “Transfer”, the legal tech tool developed by DLA Piper to support companies in evaluating data transfers out of the EEA (TIA) here, and check out a DLA Piper publication outlining Gambling regulation here, as well as a report analyzing key legal issues arising from the metaverse qui, and a comparative guide to regulations on lootboxes here.

If you no longer wish to receive Innovation Law Insights or would like to subscribe, please email Silvia Molignani.