Between Protection and Openness: Why the USP Needs a Rethink in the Age of AI

A report from the IP Awareness Day 2025 in Hamburg

Hamburg, April 2, 2025. One question ran like a thread through the discussions at this year’s IP Awareness Day at the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce: What is still protectable in an era where creative output is increasingly automated and reproducible?

The event drew a high-profile lineup. Experts from business, academia, and law came together to explore the future of intellectual property. Among them: Dr. Maria Skottke-Klein from the German Patent and Trademark Office, IP professionals from major firms – and in the midst of it all, our co-founder Arian Okhovat Alavian, sharing real-world insights from the startup trenches.

“Back then, a USP was often a product. Today, it’s more likely to be a system – a process, access to data, a customized AI setup,” said Arian. At PANTA RHAI, we develop AI-powered creative systems for media companies and organizations. What matters is not just what gets generated, but how. And that’s exactly where the debate on protectability begins.

What counts as intellectual property when machines write, design, and plan?

Under current German and EU copyright law, only works created by humans are protected. AI-generated content – whether text, visuals, or audio – is (as of 2025) not eligible for copyright protection. The U.S. Copyright Office follows a similar line.

For companies, this means: the output itself usually can’t be claimed exclusively. Which makes it all the more important to protect the systems and structures behind it. At PANTA RHAI, that means:

Trademark and design protection for our tools and visual identity
Contracts and terms of service that clarify AI usage rights and authorship
Trade secrets, particularly in areas like prompt engineering, data pipelines, or custom GPT models
And not least: clear, ethical communication about the use of AI and the origin of content

“AI is changing how we think about intellectual work – and therefore how we approach intellectual property,” Arian said during the panel discussion, moderated by Dr. Miriam Putz from the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce. “We have to learn to protect not just the output, but the entire context around it.”

Lessons from a first venture

Arian had already learned that IP isn’t just a legal footnote – but a key structural element for any business. His previous startup, LIFEoCLOCK, focused on interior design and physical products. There, the team filed for design patents and registered trademarks, developing IP strategies with markets like China and the broader EU in mind.

“The applications were expensive, often lengthy. But they bought us time – and kept copycats away,” said Alavian. “Back then, the protected item was a piece of furniture. Today, it’s a workflow. The mechanics haven’t changed – only the material has.”

The European framework – and the open questions

The EU is catching up. With the AI Act, the first regulatory framework for artificial intelligence is in place – but when it comes to IP, things remain vague. There are no formal protections yet for AI-generated content. Legal experts are still debating whether, say, a finely tuned model based on proprietary data can qualify as a “creative work” – and whether it might be protectable in part.

Another area of contention: prompting – the deliberate steering of AI outputs. Can a well-crafted prompt, especially when combined with a custom model, be considered intellectual property? As it stands: there’s no clear answer. Protection often relies on contracts, know-how clauses, and technical safeguards.

Which brings with it a new responsibility. IP is no longer just a mechanism of defense – it has become a matter of transparency, trust, and fairness. Especially when automated systems are increasingly simulating human creativity.

What the IP Awareness Day achieved

The Hamburg event was more than just a gathering of experts – it was a space for real dialogue between theory and hands-on experience. Dr. Guthöhrlein from Drägerwerk shared how a multinational thinks about patents. Prof. Dr. Kuschel of Bucerius Law School added an international legal perspective. Marina Tcharnetsky of the Artificial Intelligence Center Hamburg spoke about the growing tension between AI and human creativity.

And then there were founders like us – looking for practical ways to protect innovation without stifling it.

The USP is still alive – but no longer as a single stroke of genius. It’s now a system, orchestrated across tools, teams, and technology. Intellectual property remains crucial – but it needs to be rethought, expanded, and connected with new values. Especially in an AI-driven economy, trademark law alone won’t cut it. What’s needed is structure, clarity – and a deeper understanding of what makes something truly unique.

At PANTA RHAI, we help organizations use AI meaningfully – from developing in-house tools to strategic integration. For us, intellectual property isn’t just a legal topic. It’s part of a broader responsibility.