About Sebastian Goebel

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Sebastian Goebel has created 21 blog entries.

Sebastian Goebel to speak at the VIPS/VESPA Autumn Seminar 2026 in Basel

Sebastian Goebel to speak at the VIPS/VESPA Autumn Seminar 2026 in Basel

AI has arri­ved in IP prac­ti­ce. The ques­ti­on is no lon­ger whe­ther we use it, but whe­re it holds up in dai­ly work and whe­re it does not.

We are plea­sed that our foun­ding part­ner Sebas­ti­an Goe­bel will speak at the VIPS/VESPA Autumn Semi­nar in Basel on 30 Octo­ber 2026 on “AI in Prac­ti­ce: Status/​Experiences” — the use of AI tools from a law fir­m’s per­spec­ti­ve.

Under the hea­ding “Arti­fi­ci­al Intel­li­gence in IP: Oppor­tu­ni­ties and Risks”, the semi­nar approa­ches the topic from seve­ral angles: Angel Ale­do Lopez (CTO/COO, EPO) on the impact of AI on the world of IP, Tom Klei­ne Jäger (Seni­or Legal Coun­sel IP/IT, BASF) on con­fi­den­tia­li­ty, data secu­ri­ty and risks, Saka­ri Arve­la (foun­der and Chief Pro­duct Offi­cer, IP Ral­ly) on the limits of what AI can do, and And­res Buser (Head of Digi­tal Inno­va­ti­on and AI, Legal & Com­pli­ance) tog­e­ther with Lorenz Kal­len­bach (Cor­po­ra­te Patent Coun­sel, Roche) on AI tools and their stra­te­gic appli­ca­ti­on in indus­try. The day clo­ses with a panel dis­cus­sion invol­ving all spea­k­ers, mode­ra­ted by Ant­je Rey, Pre­si­dent of VES­PA. The­re will be an oppor­tu­ni­ty for ques­ti­ons and dis­cus­sion after each pre­sen­ta­ti­on.

Fri­day, 30 Octo­ber 2026, Novo­tel Basel City, Gross­pe­ter­stras­se 12, 4052 Basel. Regis­tra­ti­on from 8:30 am, start 9:15 am, end 5:10 pm. Fur­ther infor­ma­ti­on and regis­tra­ti­on docu­ments: www.acbis.ch

Ansprech­partner

Sebastian Goebel
Partner
Sebastian Goebel to speak at the VIPS/VESPA Autumn Seminar 2026 in Basel2026-08-24T17:39:36+02:00

IAM Strategie 2026

Sebastian Goebel recognised in IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists 2026

We are plea­sed that our foun­ding part­ner Sebas­ti­an Goe­bel has again been reco­g­nis­ed in the IAM Stra­tegy 300 – The World’s Lea­ding IP Stra­te­gists 2026.

A reco­gni­ti­on like this is never the achie­ve­ment of one per­son. It descri­bes work that grows over years: advi­sing on patent, trade mark and design law, repre­sen­ting cli­ents in pro­cee­dings, and working clo­se­ly with the inven­tors and com­pa­nies who deve­lop and build.

What makes the dif­fe­rence are col­le­agues who bring dif­fe­rent per­spec­ti­ves, chall­enge each other pro­fes­sio­nal­ly and share the same care for detail. Our thanks go to the who­le team at boes­herz | goe­bel.

And to our cli­ents: thank you for your trust, and for the ques­ti­ons that keep us sharp.

iam-media.com/rankings/strategy-300/profile/person/sebastian-goebel

IAM Strategie 20262026-08-22T21:15:39+02:00

OpenAI Gema

GEMA wins against OpenAI

If you want to use song lyrics by Ger­man musi­ci­ans to train a lan­guage model, it would pro­ba­b­ly be wise to obtain a GEMA licence. That is the impli­ca­ti­on of the Munich Regio­nal Court ruling from 11 Novem­ber 2025 – a signi­fi­cant set­back for ope­ra­tors of gene­ra­ti­ve AI.

GEMA sued Ope­nAI becau­se ChatGPT used song lyrics from nine well-known Ger­man artists, inclu­ding Her­bert Grö­ne­mey­er and Inga Hum­pe, wit­hout pay­ment. It was undis­pu­ted that the lyrics were used for trai­ning pur­po­ses. The court lar­ge­ly upheld the lawsu­it and orde­red Ope­nAI to cea­se and desist and pay dama­ges (Case ID: 42 O 14139⁄24).

Accor­ding to the court, both the memo­ri­sa­ti­on of the song lyrics in the lan­guage models and their repro­duc­tion in the chat­bo­t’s out­puts con­sti­tu­te an inf­rin­ge­ment of copy­right explo­ita­ti­on rights. The­se inf­rin­ge­ments are not cover­ed by any rest­ric­tions – in par­ti­cu­lar not by the rest­ric­tion on text and data mining. Howe­ver, the court rejec­ted the cla­im that the use of the lyrics vio­la­ted the artists’ gene­ral per­so­nal rights.

The ruling only appli­es to the older ver­si­ons GPT‑4 and GPT-4o. Whe­ther newer ver­si­ons also inf­rin­ge copy­rights remain­ed dis­pu­ted and unre­sol­ved. Both par­ties had reques­ted a refer­ral to the CJEU – the court decli­ned. Ope­nAI announ­ced it is con­side­ring next steps: “We dis­agree with the ruling and are con­side­ring next steps.” GEMA has alre­a­dy laun­ched a second case against Suno AI.

For AI deve­lo­pers, this means: the com­mer­cial use of copy­righ­ted con­tent for trai­ning AI models can trig­ger a licen­sing obli­ga­ti­on. For rights hol­ders, their nego­tia­ting posi­ti­on vis-à-vis AI pro­vi­ders has been signi­fi­cant­ly streng­the­ned. Accor­ding to Ope­nAI, the ruling has no impact on the mil­li­ons of peo­p­le, busi­nesses and deve­lo­pers who use ChatGPT every day.

The Munich ruling adds to a gro­wing wave of copy­right liti­ga­ti­on against gene­ra­ti­ve AI. In the US, The New York Times lawsu­it against Ope­nAI and Micro­soft is pro­cee­ding after a fede­ral judge in March 2025 rejec­ted Ope­nAI’s moti­on to dis­miss. That case – alle­ging that Ope­nAI used mil­li­ons of artic­les wit­hout per­mis­si­on to train ChatGPT – could set a his­to­ric copy­right pre­ce­dent for the AI era.

See: https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/open-ai-must-pay-gema-licence-fee-for-chatgpt/

OpenAI Gema2026-01-21T19:47:39+01:00

IAM Strategie 2025

Sebastian Goebel recognised in IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists 2025

We are deligh­ted that our foun­ding part­ner Sebas­ti­an Goe­bel has been reco­g­nis­ed in the cur­rent edi­ti­on of IAM Stra­tegy 300: The Worl­d’s Lea­ding IP Stra­te­gists 2025. The IAM Stra­tegy 300 is the lea­ding inter­na­tio­nal ran­king that exclu­si­ve­ly hono­urs out­stan­ding indi­vi­du­als who make signi­fi­cant con­tri­bu­ti­ons to value crea­ti­on and stra­te­gic deve­lo­p­ment of IP port­fo­li­os through their work.

In its reco­gni­ti­on, IAM high­lights that Sebas­ti­an Goe­bel’s work is cha­rac­te­ri­sed by a “for­ward-thin­king approach” that com­bi­nes tech­ni­cal inno­va­ti­on with stra­te­gic IP port­fo­lio manage­ment. With his back­ground in elec­tri­cal and infor­ma­ti­on engi­nee­ring, he brings valuable insights into the evol­ving IP land­scape.

IAM Strategie 20252025-12-28T13:16:18+01:00

Patent Portfolio Management, 2nd Edition

Contribution to “Patent Portfolio Management” published

Sebas­ti­an Goe­bel has con­tri­bu­ted to the second edi­ti­on of “Patent Port­fo­lio Manage­ment: A Prac­ti­cal Gui­de in the Age of Arti­fi­ci­al Intel­li­gence”, published by Edward Elgar Publi­shing in Decem­ber 2025.

The book, aut­ho­red by Simo­ne Frat­ta­si (Head of Glo­bal IP, A.P. Mol­ler-Maersk) and Jean-Clau­de Alex­and­re Ho (FORUM Insti­tut), pro­vi­des com­pa­nies with a prac­ti­cal gui­de to stra­te­gic patent port­fo­lio manage­ment. For the second edi­ti­on, Sebas­ti­an Goe­bel con­tri­bu­ted the “AI Insights” – sec­tions explo­ring the use of arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence in patent manage­ment.

The book is available from Edward Elgar Publi­shing.

Patent Portfolio Management, 2nd Edition2025-12-28T13:16:39+01:00

Decision on the role of AI in the complaints procedure

Decision on the role of AI in the complaints procedure

To what ext­ent can AI such as ChatGPT be used for ques­ti­ons on the inter­pre­ta­ti­on of fea­tures or inven­ti­ve step?

This recent T‑decision (T 1193‍/‍23) of the Euro­pean Patent Office, in which Bös­herz Goe­bel Patent­an­wäl­te were invol­ved as repre­sen­ta­ti­ves, now cla­ri­fies (machi­ne trans­la­ti­on):

“The gene­ral­ly incre­asing spread and use of chat­bots based on lan­guage models (”lar­ge lan­guage models“) and/​or ”arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence“ alo­ne does not jus­ti­fy the assump­ti­on that an ans­wer recei­ved […] neces­s­a­ri­ly cor­rect­ly reflects the under­stan­ding of the per­son skil­led in the respec­ti­ve tech­ni­cal field (at the rele­vant time)”

(see decis­i­on text)

The EPO Board of Appeal empha­si­zes that appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal lite­ra­tu­re must be con­sul­ted ins­tead for the cor­rect inter­pre­ta­ti­on of patent claims. In this case, the ques­ti­on was whe­ther ChatGPT ans­wers could be used to inter­pret the term – an approach that the Board cle­ar­ly rejec­ted.

This decis­i­on is a first, important land­mark for the limits of AI use in patent pro­cee­dings and under­lines the con­tin­ued importance of sound tech­ni­cal exper­ti­se.

Decision on the role of AI in the complaints procedure2025-12-28T13:51:11+01:00
Go to Top