[Guest Post] [Conference Report] Intellectual Property in the Gaming Industry (JDPI)

Key Takeaways

• Video games lack clear legal classification across jurisdictions
• EU courts favor InfoSoc Directive, affecting resale rights
• US rulings limit protection for standard game mechanics
• AI-generated assets raise authorship and royalty questions
• WIPO ADR offers cost-effective, expert-driven dispute resolution

Summary

The University of Geneva’s JDPI 2026 conference examined intellectual property challenges in the video‑game sector, emphasizing the difficulty of classifying games as software, audiovisual works, or hybrid creations. Speakers compared EU, US, and UK approaches, noting the EU’s aggregation model and US courts’ layered analysis of mechanics and expression. The event highlighted emerging issues such as AI‑generated content, esports licensing, and the need for specialized dispute‑resolution mechanisms, with WIPO presenting tailored ADR tools and the new International Games and Esports Tribunal. Industry leaders discussed how these legal nuances affect contracts, royalties, and enforcement strategies.

Pulse Analysis

The rapid expansion of interactive entertainment has outpaced traditional copyright frameworks, leaving video games in a legal gray zone. Practitioners grapple with whether to treat a title as a single work, a collection of software modules, or an audiovisual masterpiece. This ambiguity complicates right‑sholder identification, contract drafting, and enforcement, especially as games integrate music, character designs, and user‑generated content. By framing games as complex, multi‑author works, regulators can better align protection with the industry’s multidisciplinary nature, fostering clearer ownership pathways.

Recent case law on both sides of the Atlantic underscores divergent doctrinal trends. In the United States, courts have drawn a hard line around standard game mechanics, deeming them unprotectable, which pressures developers to innovate beyond generic templates. Conversely, the European Court of Justice’s reliance on the InfoSoc Directive in Nintendo v. PC Box streamlines protection under a single regime but raises questions about exhaustion rights and resale. Meanwhile, AI‑driven asset creation introduces fresh disputes over authorship, originality, and remuneration, prompting legislators and courts to reconsider the balance between creator incentives and technological advancement.

To mitigate escalating litigation costs and jurisdictional fragmentation, the World Intellectual Property Organization is championing alternative dispute resolution tailored to gaming. WIPO’s mediation, arbitration, and expert determination services provide cost‑sensitive, technically proficient forums that preserve confidentiality—critical for trade‑secret‑laden projects. The launch of the International Games and Esports Tribunal further centralizes expertise, offering a one‑stop venue for both commercial IP clashes and integrity issues in esports. These mechanisms promise faster, more predictable outcomes, enabling developers and publishers to focus on innovation rather than protracted legal battles.