<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Juris Eagle insights: AI, data and emerging technology</title><description>Notes on Indian law filed under AI, data and emerging technology, published by Juris Eagle.</description><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/practice/ai-and-emerging-technology</link><language>en-in</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2026 12:40:42 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://juriseagle.com/insights/practice/ai-and-emerging-technology/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><docs>https://juriseagle.com/disclaimer</docs><item><title>An AI vendor&apos;s indemnity moves the money, not the responsibility: contracts, diligence and disclosure</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/ai-in-contracts-diligence-and-disclosure</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/ai-in-contracts-diligence-and-disclosure</guid><description>Contracts for AI tools are usually drafted as if a warranty and an indemnity settle who answers for the tool. In India they settle who pays, and only up to the cap. Responsibility sits elsewhere. The Securities and Exchange Board of India has already notified a regulation, regulation 16C of the Intermediaries Regulations, 2008, under which a regulated person using AI or machine learning tools is solely responsible for investor data, for the output of the tools and for compliance, whether it built the tool or bought it. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 will say the same about personal data from 13 May 2027, irrespective of any agreement to the contrary. The Reserve Bank&apos;s FREE-AI report is a committee report, and the SEBI guidelines on AI use are still a June 2025 consultation as far as we could trace. So the drafting task is to price and cap a loss the buyer cannot hand over, and the diligence task is to find out what a target actually owns.</description><pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Adv. Adithya Karthik K</dc:creator><category>Technology and data</category><category>ai-and-emerging-technology</category><category>contracts-and-procurement</category><category>boardroom-and-corporate</category><category>technology-data-and-product</category></item><item><title>AI and patents, trade secrets and training data in India</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/ai-patents-trade-secrets-and-training-data</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/ai-patents-trade-secrets-and-training-data</guid><description>Where Indian law stands on patenting AI, naming an AI as inventor, protecting models as trade secrets, and using copyright works as training data.</description><pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Dr. Vijay Mishra</dc:creator><category>Technology and data</category><category>ai-and-emerging-technology</category><category>ip-and-licensing</category><category>technology-data-and-product</category></item><copyright>2024 Juris Eagle. This website is intended solely for informational purposes and does not constitute solicitation or advertisement under applicable Bar Council regulations. The transmission or receipt of information through this platform does not create an advocate-client relationship. Legal advice is rendered only upon formal written engagement with the firm.</copyright></channel></rss>