Rahul: That's an excellent question, Neha. The crux is really the uncertainty about who owns an analysis or insight that an AI autonomously generates from customer data – and which wasn't created by a human employee. A very relevant real-world example is Salesforce’s Einstein. Let's imagine Einstein's AI creates forecasts or reports specifically for a client. Without explicit contractual terms, the burning question arises: Is this result the client's intellectual property, or can Salesforce perhaps even reuse it itself or make it accessible to other clients? This ambiguity is the perfect breeding ground for future conflicts.

Neha: Exactly, and this IP ambivalence can have existential consequences, especially in sensitive areas like healthcare. Can you sketch a concrete scenario where this could go wrong – perhaps even referencing a known precedent case that illustrates the risk?

Rahul: Absolutely. Let's take an AI SaaS service that analyzes clinical data from a pharmaceutical company and generates a proprietary insight – for example, a specific signal about the efficacy of a drug in a particular patient group. If the contract doesn't have clear IP assignment for this AI-generated insight, the SaaS provider could later claim rights to it or argue that it may use this insight – perhaps in anonymized or aggregated form – for other clients too. A very instructive case that underscores this risk – even though it primarily involved trade secrets and not pure AI output – is IQVIA vs. Veeva from 2017. IQVIA, itself a major provider of SaaS solutions in the healthcare data space, sued Veeva at the time because it believed Veeva had used its protected data to derive competitively relevant insights. Such cases show impressively: Clear contractual rules for derived data and insights are not optional; they are essential.

Neha: That perfectly underscores the importance of your work. How did you solve this double challenge – on the one hand giving the client the necessary sense of security and clear ownership rights over his specific AI insights, while on the other hand also enabling your former employer to learn from the use of the service and further develop its platform? Are there comparable models, perhaps from the public sector?

Rahul: A very central question because this balance was indeed the key. My clauses made it unambiguously clear: Insights that our AI generated specifically from the unique clinical data of a particular client are owned by that client – or at least licensed exclusively to them. This was fundamental to protect their trust and competitive advantage. A positive model from another context, by the way, is Palantir's contracts for its Gotham software with the German federal government. Palantir explicitly ensures there that the intelligence reports generated by the software are considered the property of the government – this takes legitimate IP concerns off the table from the outset. But – and this is crucial – on the other side, I contractually ensured that my former employer retained ownership of the underlying proprietary algorithms and, very importantly, of aggregated and anonymized insights derived from the usage of all clients. This ensured that a single client couldn't suddenly claim rights to general improvements of the AI or the service that were prompted by their usage. It's about separating the specific output for the client from the general learning of the platform.

Neha: That strongly reminds me of the classic "Work Made for Hire" problem in copyright law, just applied to AI output. Without clear contractual assignment, it's often completely unclear who owns the result. Wasn't there even a famous precedent case from aerospace that illustrates this danger?

Rahul: Correctly spotted, Neha! That's a very important analogy and a cautionary tale...

***

Please read the German and the complete English text here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oEspwKpwMcjlN5BkId5-KTNIs7pywqDbp8g1lYnU2fg/edit?usp=sharing

***