In the year 2024, a world without the internet seems unimaginable. Today we take our connectivity for granted; however, it has only been a mere 50 years since the internet appeared. Mark Weiser, a pioneer of computer science, identified the need for connectivity when the internet was making its first commercial appearances. In his article “The Computer for the 21st Century,” he referred to “ubiquitous computing” as the transformation of everyday objects into computers.¹ His idea of a room where electronic devices could work as a computer and connect to each other was the forerunner to the Internet of Things (IoT) as we know it.

Weiser's vision sparked the development of the IoT, where the use of the internet allows physical objects to connect with each other.² The International Organisation for Standardisation defines the IoT as "an infrastructure of interconnected objects, people, systems and information resources together with intelligent services to permit them to process information of the physical and the virtual world and react."³ The capabilities of the IoT have transformed daily objects into intelligent tools that make consumers' lives more convenient, efficient and safe.

In other words, the IoT has and continues to revolutionise the way we view the world. Everything is becoming "smart(er)" and digitised. It is estimated that by 2030, the number of IoT devices will reach 30 billion worldwide⁴ - 3.5 times larger than the projected world population.⁵ This connection wave has impacted a multitude of sectors like health, transport and manufacturing.⁶ Indeed, it seems that no area has become immune to the advance of connectivity. Even the human body itself is the subject of connectivity developments. This is where the Internet of Bodies (IoB) emerges, unlocking immense possibilities for the present and the future of humanity.

The significance of the IoB is apparent by the constantly emerging initiatives, projects and investments directed to it. A characteristic example is the funding of pilot projects for the purpose of supporting digital innovation in the healthcare sector (IoT in healthcare) by the European Union, amounting in 2020 to EUR 60 million.⁷ In addition, industry players acknowledge the prominence of IoB devices and considerable influence that they (will) have in life as we know it.⁸

Against this background, this article introduces and explores the Internet of Bodies. It will present several examples of widespread IoB devices as well as their utility. Finally, it will explain the importance of ultra-fast and highly reliable connectivity for the IoB to reach its full potential.

a. What is the IoB?

The notions of the cyborg and bionic human have been attractive to the human imagination for decades, becoming a significant part of pop-culture through literature and cinema.⁹ Although the terms “cyborg” and “bionic human” are generally distinguishable, they both refer to any potential improvement or enhancement of the human body through technology.¹⁰ The merging of human and machine is, however, no longer the subject of science fiction, rather it is unfolding in the present. Either for therapeutic reasons or for vanity and convenience, many people are excited to exploit the newest technological inventions for their advantage.

The term "Internet of Bodies" was brought into the legal realm by Professor Andrea Matwyshyn in 2019.¹¹ In her article The Internet of Bodies, she thoroughly explores the IoB, which she defines as a "network of human bodies whose integrity and functionality rely at least in part on the internet and related technologies, such as artificial intelligence."¹² The possibilities enabled by connectivity seem endless, especially when an enhanced person can become a member of a community, communicating with others through in-body devices. This way, the human body is becoming a platform, transmitting data directly to external or internal devices (e.g., a smart ring).¹³ In the near future, a connected body might even become a platform capable of transmitting and receiving data from other human bodies (e.g., brain-to-brain interfaces).

This connection between human and machine can be achieved through a palette of diverse technologies and solutions, from a simple smartwatch to more technologically advanced bionic eyes.¹⁴ The future of inter-human connectivity holds unimaginable opportunities. Despite being encompassed by the IoB, the numerous different devices do not necessarily share the same function, application, effect, or interaction with the human body.¹⁵ In the next chapter, we describe the current classifications of the IoB according to their location and their scope.

b. Types of IoB Devices

i. IoB Devices Based on their Purpose

Before delving deeper into IoB-specific categorisation, we will examine the significant dichotomy between medical¹⁶ and non-medical devices. The European legislator has given a broad definition of what constitutes a medical device in Article 2 of EU Regulation 2017/745. In essence, a medical device refers to any device — including implants and software — that has been manufactured with the intention of being used by humans for "specific medical purposes," such as diagnosis, prognosis, monitoring and treatment of disease, injury or disability.¹⁷ Thus, interconnected devices falling within the scope of the definition, such as internet-connected cochlear implants¹⁸ or neural interfaces (e.g., brain implants) for Parkinson's treatment¹⁹ are considered medical IoB devices.

The use and popularity of these devices disseminated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The vitals of people infected with the virus were monitored with the help of these devices in a safe and contact-free manner.²⁰ In addition, remote monitoring of carriers and potentially-infected individuals in general assisted with prevention and control of COVID-19.

On the other hand, non-medical IoB devices — as given away by their name — are mostly defined negatively. Any device that is non-medical according to the above definition, or aims to enable self-augmentation might be included in non-medical devices.²¹ Another term that could be used is consumer IoB devices (to distinguish with the ones meant for patients).²² The latter may be used for recreational, educational, communicational or even military purposes.²³ For example, both Apple and Meta have recently marketed their Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality headsets that offer an immersive experience on simple activities such as watching Netflix or playing video games.²⁴ Another, more eccentric non-medical IoB device is Duo Skin, a tattoo-like on-skin interface developed by the MIT Media Lab in collaboration with Microsoft.²⁵ This device can control electronic devices (e.g., the user's cell phone) and store data.

Subcategories for medical and non-medical devices have also been proposed.²⁶ For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), believes that some non-medical IoB devices encouraging a healthy lifestyle should be classified as "general wellness" devices. Some examples of such devices would be Fit-Bit ingestible "smart pills" for health-monitoring²⁷ or electronic skin.²⁸ In addition, there are many devices that incorporate both medical and non-medical functions.²⁹ Some examples include: i) eye lenses measuring the user's glucose levels, whilst being used to translate texts in different languages;³⁰ and ii) an artificial hippocampus assisting with the restoration and enhancement of the person's memory.³¹ These devices might be the future of the IoB, combining the attributes of medical devices necessary for patients, with the perks and endless possibilities provided by non-medical devices.

ii. Generations of IoB Devices

Apart from the purpose-oriented classification of IoB devices, Matwyshyn introduced a categorization method comprised of three generations based on their interaction with and proximity to the human body. The first generation refers to body external devices, the second generation to body internal devices and the third generation to body melted devices.³²

A. First Generation
Today, the most popular and familiar to conusmers IoB devices are the ones remaining outside of the human body. For example, smartwatches or fitness trackers have become indispensable for millions of consumers, with their initial adoption being compared to the one of mobile phones.³³ It is estimated that in 2023 there were almost 220 million smartwatch users globally.³⁴ But, except for the 'must have' fitness watches, there are other smart devices with diverse functions in the market, e.g., Bluetooth-connected breast pumps. These devices can update the user's daily pumping schedule and send the information directly to the connected smart phone.³⁵ This relatively simple use-case is one step closer to the "platformisation" of the human body.

B. Second Generation
The second-generation devices refer to those that are implanted or integrated either entirely or partly inside the human body. They may also be connected to the human body through the nervous system.³⁶ Regardless of their exact integration, they run software for the collection, analysis and transmission of data on a temporary or permanent basis.³⁷ A typical example of such a device is the "modern" pacemaker that utilizes the internet to transmit data and realize the remote management of a delicate heart-assisting device.³⁸

Such devices are only the beginning. Patients' needs have led to the connection of the nervous system or bones with more "realistic" prosthetics. The patient can control the prosthetic through brain-machine interface (BMI) and move the limb only with their thoughts with a high degree of accuracy.³⁹ The advancement of the technology does not stop there. Scientists have aspirations to enable amputees to "feel" through their prosthetics.⁴⁰ Moreover, people have chosen to have a chip implanted in their bodies in order to unlock their car.⁴¹ Furthermore, some have had chip implants following a request from their employer (the legality of which is heavily debatable, with the practice being banned in several U.S. states).⁴² As technology and peoples' needs — real or made-up — continue to develop, the body internal devices will evolve accordingly.

C. Third Generation
Finally, third-generation IoB devices refer to those that blend the human brain and computer, creating invasive brain-computer or brain-to-brain interfaces that will enable the person to be both a transmitter and receiver of information.⁴³ Such characterization surely brings to mind pictures of movie-like androids, but these devices are not so far from becoming a reality.

Body-melder technology is the vision of many scientists and entrepreneurs that systematically pursue the creation of an evolved version of a human, the real human-cyborg. A case in point: Neuralink, a neurotechnology company, has created a brain-computer interface for the purpose of improving the life of people with serious medical conditions and, as a next step, to open up limitless possibilities for humans.⁴⁴ Indeed, at the beginning of 2024 Neuralink performed its first chip implantation in a human, with the first neural indications being positive.⁴⁵ The initial objective of Neuralink is to allow the recipients of the implants to complete easy tasks such as control a computer keyboard using only their thoughts.

Despite incredible leaps made by neurotechnology scientists, there is a long way to go before achieving cognitive enhancement of the human brain through a computer (e.g., uploading information directly to our brain). In the meantime, the already developed body-melded IoB devices are focused on making everyday life easier for patients or even trying to mitigate some of their symptoms. For example, brain prosthetics are examined to help people with degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's to regain some of their memories⁴⁶ or paraplegic people walk again, without the use of an exoskeleton.⁴⁷

i. Connectivity Standards for IoB

It is natural that the IoB — as with most drastically innovative technologies — carries an avalanche of improvements in the users’ health as well as daily life. The use of medical IoB devices allows, for example, for pain-free, non-invasive diagnosis or can improve the quality of life of patients with chronic diseases.⁴⁸

It is worth noting that these cutting-edge IoB solutions and their subsequent benefits are possible thanks to seamless and ubiquitous connectivity.⁴⁹ More specifically, connectivity between the users' devices with mobile and wireless networks as well as amongst each other. In order to achieve such connectivity, the devices need to be interoperable and compatible by adhering to a common set of technical rules. And this is where standardisation comes into play.⁵⁰

Technical standarsd "define how a cellular network operates and communicates with other networks."⁵¹ Examples of standards in the information and communication technology (ICT) field are Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and cellular standards (2G to 5G). All the above technologies are currently used in IoB devices.⁵² However, due to their technical characteristics, these connectivity solutions serve different purposes and apply in different use cases.

Bluetooth is a short-range wireless solution with limited data transfer capabilities. For this reason, its application can be less costly.⁵³ A simple and common use case for Bluetooth is to connect smartwatches, or even cochlear implants, with mobile phones.⁵⁴ On the other hand, for more advanced use cases in order to connect the device from wherever it is to the internet, Wi-Fi and cellular standards have been deployed.⁵⁵ Wi-Fi has been
a constant in our workplaces and homes for years due to its stability and lower cost.⁵⁶ However, 5G offers much faster and reliable data transfer as well as increased flexibility and mobility.⁵⁷ In a comparison between Wi-Fi and 5G made by Accenture, a multinational IT consulting company, 5G prevails over Wi-Fi in all metrics (i.e., latency, mobility, coverage, bandwidth and security).⁵⁸ For this reason, the so-called Cellular Internet of Bodies is expected to become the most popular solution for the health ecosystem in the near future.⁵⁹ Meanwhile, there are examples in China and Italy where surgeons used 5G-powered robots to perform certain procedures and surgeries.⁶⁰

Due to the shortcomings of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, cellular standards (in particular 5G and 6G) are expected to be used for critical IoB applications in the future. Advanced security protocols, increased flexibility, and low latency⁶¹ — i.e., low response time between sending and receiving data—amount to reliable connectivity for present and future IoB devices.

ii. Standardisation as the Cornerstone of IoB Connectivity

IoB applications raise unique challenges. Given the potential impact on human health and well-being, IoB applications will face rigorous commercial demands for security, privacy, reliability, and ultra-low latency communications. To address these challenges, one could expect development of standards that ensure the safe and effective use of cellular technology within IoB contexts. To achieve the highest performance, these standards will likely be developed in 3GPP.⁶²

3GPP is a joint project of seven Standard Development Organisations (SDOs), including ETSI (European Telecommunications Standard Institute).⁶³ In addition to cellular standards (2G to 5G), 3GPP has introduced various standards that facilitate IoT applications through technologies like NB-IoT (Narrowband IoT) and LTE-M (LTE for Machines). These and other similar standards developed in 3GPP could potentially be applicable to IoB applications due to their focus on low power consumption, wide coverage, and ability to support a vast
number of connected devices.

In 3GPP, only the best technologies become part of a collaborative standard. As these technologies are the result of massive investments in research and development, they are typically protected by patents.⁶⁴ Patented inventions that are necessary to comply with a technical standard are known as standard essential patents
(SEPs). Hence, any standard-compliant device must incorporate them.⁶⁵

To facilitate the widespread dissemination of cutting-edge standards, innovators usually agree to make their SEPs available on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions.⁶⁶ The FRAND commitment allows those implementing the standard to gain access to standardised technologies on reasonable terms. Moreover, the FRAND framework enables technology developers to receive fair and adequate compensation for their innovative contributions of proprietary solutions to the standard.⁶⁷ Such compensation acts as a strong incentive for them to continue investing in research and development (R&D) for the next generation of the standard, closing the cycle of innovation.⁶⁸

iii. IoB at Risk

The use pf cellular technologies in IoB applications will allow consumers and patients to benefit from a variety of secure end products that will have been attained through vigorous downstream competition.

In order to ensure that the much-needed standardization efforts will be pursued in the IoB field, the current successful standardisation (FRAND) ecosystem needs to be maintained, from the open collaboration in standards development to the efficient technology sharing through FRAND licensing. Any attempt to disrupt the delicate balance of interests between contributors and implementers should be avoided. This includes an appropriate IP framework that makes it possible for industry players to obtain a fair return on their investment to encourage them to invest in IoB innovation.⁶⁹

In this context, regulatory proposal made last year by the European Commission for a new licensing framework for SEPs⁷⁰ may diminish the success of the IoB. The European Parliament has recently adopted its position on the proposal for regulation and is now waiting for the position of the Council of the European Union before the legislative process can move forward.⁷¹ In brief, the newly introduced measures pertain to SEP registration and essentiality checks, FRAND determination and SEP aggregate royalty rates, all within the auspices of a new Competence Centre. This Centre will be under the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).⁷²

According to the Commission, the main objective of said proposals is to establish a transparent SEP licensing framework that balances the interests of both SEP owners and implementers.⁷³ This will allegedly increase the competitiveness of European companies and boost the EU single market.

From its publication, this regulatory proposal has faced strong criticism. Some of the many concerns raised are that the proposed regulation:

(i) is based on the premise that the status quo in FRAND licensing is inefficient and needs to be fixed,⁷⁴ while the evidence on this aspect is “inconclusive.”⁷⁵ To the contrary, the current landscape proves that any potential challenges have not discouraged contributions to and development of standards, nor the implementation thereof in the market.

(ii) breaches EU Fundamental Rights and the TRIPS Agreement,⁷⁶

(iii) interferes with the requirements established by Court of Justice of the EU in Huawei v ZTE,⁷⁷

(iv) risks weakening EU's global competitiveness,⁷⁸

(v) grants the EUIPO authority for essentiality checks, FRAND determination, and SEP aggregate royalty rates although the Center lacks sufficient resources and expertise,⁷⁹ and

(vi) has not given an opportunity for new market solutions (like Avanci)⁸⁰ or the new Unified Patent Court system⁸¹ to address any potential challenges raised by the European Commission.

Should this new framework be adopted in Europe, the existing well-functioning FRAND licensing regime will likely be distorted to the benefit of implementers.⁸² Compliance with the newly introduced measures will require SEP owners to invest additional resources to fulfill the requirements of the new and often duplicative system, creating additional bureaucracies without achieving the stated goal of facilitating SEP licenses. In addition to this, SEP owners will probably lack timely compensation on FRAND terms. If so, contributors will not be incentivised to invest in standardisation.

As a result, the consequences are expected to negatively affect European technology leaders, European standardisation institutions as well as the European market.⁸³ Furthermore, the IoB sector would likely be equally impacted, since the relevant industry players will be devoid of incentives to invest in R&D towards its advancement.

Several years ago, the IoT revolutionised our daily lives; now many consider owning a smart car the obvious choice. Technological development though pushes the boundaries, introducing the next frontier: the Internet of Bodies. IoB devices are expected to profoundly impact the lives of consumers and patients alike. Electronic devices connected to the internet reside around, on and within the human body, creating a massive network where data is transmitted every passing second. This seamless connectivity is made possible primarily through ICT standards such as 5G, which are crucial in the communication between IoB devices and the human body. For this reason, the continuous development and improvement of connectivity standards, and especially cellular standards, is considered a key variable for the future of the IoB. Towards this goal, technology developers are willing to devote a great number of resources, provided that they can be rewarded fairly for their endeavours. The FRAND licensing framework
currently in place allows such fair remuneration. Therefore, it is indispensable to maintain this well-functioning system; any ill-considered efforts to alter it, such
as the recent proposal of the European Commission to regulate standard essential patents, could lead to a disruption of the balance among stakeholders and market
inefficiencies, ultimately affecting end-users globally.

*The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do no necessarily reflect the opinions of Ericsson (author's employer at time of writing).

1. Mark Weiser, “The Computer for the 21st Century” (Scientific American website, 1991) https://www.lri.fr/~mbl/Stanford/CS477/papers/Weiser-SciAm.pdf, accessed 22 March 2024.

2. This connection is possible because of the integration of microcontrollers and smart systems. See Friedemann Mattern and Christian Floerkemeier, “From the Internet of Computers to the Internet of Things” in Kai Sachs, Ilia Petrov and Pablo Guerrero (eds), From Active Data Management to Event-Based Systems and More (1st edn, Springer 2010) 242.

3. SO/IEC JTC 1, “Internet of Things (IoT)” (2014) 1, 3 https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/les/developing_standards/docs/en/internet_of_things_report-jtc1.pdf, accessed 22 March 2024.

4. “Number of Internet of Things (IoT) connected devices worldwide from 2019 to 2023, with forecasts from 2022 to 2030” (Statista, 2023) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1183457/iot-connected-devices-worldwide/, accessed 22 March 2024.

5. “Global Issues: Population” (United Nations official website, 2024) https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/population, accessed 22 March 2024.

6. “IoT sectors enhanced by cellular standards” (4iP Council website) https://www.4ipcouncil.com/standards/iot-sectors-enhanced-by-cellular-standards, accessed 22 March 2024.

7. European Commission, “The Internet of Things in European healthcare | Shaping Europe’s digital future” (europa.eu), accessed 22 March 2024.

8. See more at “10 Hot Consumer Trends 2030: The internet of senses” (Ericsson official website) https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/consumerlab/reports/10-hot-consumer-trends-2030, accessed 22 March 2024.

9. Adam Belloto, “An Early History of Our Cinematic Cyborgs” (Film School Rejects, 2014) https://filmschoolrejects.com/an-early-history-of-our-cinematic-cyborgs-9707632eef2a/,
accessed 22 March 2024.

10. Across the literature, there are several schools of thought and, subsequently, definitions on cyborg and bionic human. According to Sydney Perkowitz, the main difference between cyborg (cybernetic organism) and bionic human is that the former is dominated by its mechanical parts (“a brain in a box”), while the latter maintains its humanity apart from a small number of implants or replacements. See Sidney Perkowitz, Digital People—From Bionic Humans to Androids (1st edn, Joseph Henry Press Washington DC 2004) 5.

For Woodrow Barfield, the cyborg is more likely to be considered a ‘genus,’ encompassing any potential improvement or enhancement of the human body through technology. 11 See Woodrow Barfield, Cyber-Humans—Our Future with Machines (1st edn, Springer 2020) 4.

Adopting a more ontological definition, Donna Haraway in her Cyborg Manifesto describes the cyborg as “a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction.” See Donna J. Haraway, “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late 20th Century” in
Joel Weiss, Jason Nolan, Jeremy Hunsinger, Peter Trifonas (eds), The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments (1st edn, Springer 2006), 117.

11. Andrea Matwyshyn, “The Internet of Bodies” (2019), 61 William & Mary Law Review 77. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol61/iss1/3/, accessed 22 March 2024.

12. Matwyshyn (n 11) 77.

13. Michael Sawh, “Best smart rings: Put a ring on it” (Wareable website, February 7 2020) https://www.wareable.com/fashion/best-smart-rings-1340, accessed 22 March 2024.

14. Muireann Quigley and Semande Ayihongbe, “Everyday Cyborgs: On Integrated Persons and Integrated Goods” (2018) 26(2) Medical Law Review 276, 279.

15. Abdulkadir Celik and Ahmed M. Eltawil, “The Internet of Bodies: The Human Body as an Efficient and Secure Wireless Channel” (April 2022), IEEE Internet of Things Magazine, 1. https://www.techrxiv.org/users/663061/articles/677736-the-internet-of-bodies-the-human-body-as-an-efficient-and-secure-wireless-channel, accessed 22 March 2024.

16. The medical IoB devices are also known as Internet of Medical Things or eHealth devices.

17. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices [2017] OJ L 117/17, art 2.

18. Celik and Eltawil, (n 15) 2.

19. “iHuman perspective: Neural interfaces” (The Royal Society, 2019) https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/ihuman-perspective/, accessed 22 March 2024.

20. World Economic Forum, “Shaping the Future of the Internet of Bodies: New challenges of technology governance” (WEF, July 2020) https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_IoB_briefing_paper_2020.pdf, 8, accessed 22 March 2024.

21. It needs to be noted here that under the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 fall several devices that do not have an intended medical purpose, as listed in Annex XVI of said Regulation. These devices are the following: 1. Contact lenses or other items intended to be introduced into or onto the eye; 2. Products intended to be totally or partially introduced into the human body through surgically invasive means for the purpose of modifying the anatomy or fixation of body parts with the exception of tattooing products and piercings; 3. Substances, combinations of substances, or items intended to be used for facial or other dermal or mucous membrane filling by subcutaneous, submucous or intradermal injection or other introduction, excluding those for tattooing; 4. Equipment intended to be used to reduce, remove or destroy adipose tissue, such as equipment for liposuction, lipolysis or lipoplasty; 5. High intensity electromagnetic radiation (e.g., infra-red, visible light and ultra-violet) emitting equipment intended for use on the human body, including coherent and non-coherent sources, monochromatic and broad spectrum, such as lasers and intense pulsed light equipment, forskin resurfacing, tattoo or hair removal or other skin treatment; 6. Equipment intended for brain stimulation that apply electrical currents or magnetic or electromagnetic fields that penetrate the cranium to modify neuronal activity in the brain.

For these devices specifically, the European Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/23461, as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1194, to address the risk management concerns.

22. Andrei Klubnikin, “What is the Internet of Bodies (IoB), and why should you care?” (RItrex, 2022) https://itrexgroup.com/blog/internet-of-bodies-iob-definition-benefits-examples/, accessed 22 March 2024.

23. Matwyshyn (n 12) 111; E&T Editorial Stuff, “Darpa funds brain-machine interface project for controlling weapons via thoughts” (Engineering and Technology website, May 23 2019) https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/05/darpa-funds-brain-machine-interface-project-for-controlling-weapons-via-thoughts/, accessed 22 March 2024.

24. Will Greenwald, “Apple Vision Pro vs. Meta Quest Pro: Mixed Reality Matchup” (PCmag, 2024), https://uk.pcmag.com/comparison/150863/apple-vision-pro-vs-meta-quest-pro-mixed-reality-matchup, accessed 22 March 2024.

25. Duo Skin, (Duo Skin website), https://duoskin.media.mit.edu/, accessed 22 March 2024.

26. Matwyshyn (n 12) 95; U.S.A Food & Drug Administration, “General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices” (FDA website, Sept 2019) https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/general-wellness-policy-low-risk-devices, accessed 22 March 2024.

27. Celia Ford, “This pill tracks your vitals from the inside” (Wired, 2023) https://www.wired.com/story/this-pill-tracks-your-vitals-from-the-inside/, accessed 22 March 2024.

28. Isabel Pedersen, “Will the Body Become a Platform? Body Networks, Datafied Bodies and AI Futures” in Isabel Pedersen and Andrew Iliadis (eds), Embodied Computing: Wearables, Implantables, Embeddables, Ingestibles (1st edn, The MIT Press 2020) 24.

29. Matwyshyn (n 11) 111.

30. Mantik Choy, “New Smart Contact Lenses to Monitor Glucose Levels” (Medical News Bulletin website, 2018) https://medicalnewsbulletin.com/new-smart-contact-lensesto-monitor-glucose-levels/, accessed 22 March 2024; Tekla S. Perry, “Augmented Reality Contact Lens Startup Develops Apps With Early Adopters-to-Be” (IEEE Spectrum, 2021) https://spectrum.ieee.org/startup-mojo-vision-has-the-earliest-adopters-of-augmented-reality-contact-lenses-in-its-sights, accessed 22 March 2024.

31. Woodrow Barfield and Alexander Williams, “Law, Cyborgs and Technologically Enhanced Brains” (2017) 2 Philosophies 1, 5.

32. Matwyshyn (n 11) 94.

33. The Economist—Technology Quarterly, “The quantified self—Wearable devices are connecting health care to daily life” (7 May 2022) <https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/05/02/wearable-devices-are-connecting-health-care-to-daily-life, accessed 22 March 2024.

34. Insightful Smartwatch Statistics For 2024 (DemandSage, 2024) https://www.demandsage.com/smartwatch-statistics/, accessed 22 March 2024.

35. Matwyshyn (n 11) 94.

36. Matwyshyn (n 11) 103.

37. Quigley and Ayihongbe (n 14) 279.

38. Celik and Eltawil (n 15) 2; Mary Lee, Benjamin Boudreaux, Ritika Chaturvedi, Sasha Romanosky and Bryce Downing, “Internet of Bodies: Opportunities, Risks, and Governance” (RAND Corporation, 2020) https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3226.html, accessed 22 March 2024.

39. Leslie Nemo, “This New Prosthetic Leg Hooks Into Users’ Nervous Systems” (Discover website, Oct 4 2019) https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/this-new-prosthetic-leg-hooks-into-users-nervous-systems, accessed 22 March 2024.

40. Claudia Lopez Lloreda, “Nerve-mimicking device gives ‘feeling’ to prosthetics” (Science, 2023) https://www.science.org/content/article/nerve-mimicking-device-gives-feeling-prosthetics, accessed 22 March 2024.

41. The Economic Times, “That’s handy! Tesla driver implants chip in his hand as car key” (2022) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/thats-handy-tesla-driver-implants-chip-in-his-hand-as-car-key/articleshow/93707020.cms?from=mdr, accessed 22 March 2024.

42. SHRM, “Another State Bans Employers Microchipping Workers” (April 2021) https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/technology/another-state-bans-employers-microchipping-workers, accessed 22 March 2024.

43. Matwyshyn (n 11) 112.

44. Neuralink official website (2024) https://neuralink.com, accessed 22 March 2024.

45. Reuters, “Elon Musk’s Neuralink implants brain chip in first human” (2024) https://www.reuters.com/technology/neuralink-implants-brain-chip-first-human-musk-says-2024-01-29/, accessed 22 March 2024.

46. Carly Cassella, “New ‘Prosthetic’ Hacks The Brain to Recall Specific Memories” (ScienceAlert, February 2024) https://www.sciencealert.com/new-prosthetic-hacks-the-brain-to-recall-specific-memories, accessed 22 March 2024.

47. Christine E. King, Po T. Wang et al., “The feasibility of a brain-computer interface functional electrical stimulation system for the restoration of overground walking after paraplegia” (Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation website, Sept 24 2015) <https://jneuroengrehab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12984-015-0068-7, accessed 22 March 2024.

48. The Economist, “Wearble technology promises to revolutionise healthcare” (7 May 2022) https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/05/05/wearable-technology-promises-to-revolutionise-health-care?giftId=b49c5c00-4b97-4805-a3e7-c512420d57af, accessed 22 March 2024; “What is the Internet of Bodies (IoB), and why should you care?” (n 23).

49. Eleftheria Stefanaki, “The Internet of Bodies could save many lives but risks failing without standards” (IAM, 2021) https://www.iam-media.com/article/the-internet-of-bodies-could-save-many-lives-risks-failing-without-standards, accessed 22 March 2024.

50. For more information on standardization see: Dr. habil. Nizar Abdelkafi, Prof. Raffaele Bolla et al., “Understanding ICT Standardization: Principles and Practice” (ETSI website, 2021) <https://www.etsi.org/images/files/Education/Textbook_Understanding_ICT_Standardization.pdf, accessed 22 March 2024. You can find a summary of this publication here: “Summary: ‘Understanding ICT Standardisation: Principles and Practice’” (2023) https://www.4ipcouncil.com/research/summary-understanding-ict-standardisation-principles-and-practice, accessed 22 March 2024.

51. 4iPCouncil, “IoT & Cellular Standards,” https://www.4ipcouncil.com/standards/what-are-iot-and-cellular-standards, accessed 22 March 2024.

52. Bowman Heiden, “The Value of Cellular Connectivity—From Mobile Devices to the Internet-of-Things (IoT)” (August 9, 2020), 9 - available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3670222, accessed 12 March 2024; See also Celik and Eltawil (n 15) 5-6. The authors mentioned specifically the IEEE 802.15.6 specification as well as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE).

53. Heiden (n 52) 9; Britannica, “What’s the Difference Between Bluetooth and Wi-Fi?” (Britannica offcial website) https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-bluetooth-and-wi-fi, accessed 22 March 2024.

54. Cochlear, “Cochlear introduces the world’s first Made for iPhone cochlear implant sound processor” (Cochlear website, July 2017) https://www.cochlear.com/ca/en/corporate/media-center/media-releases/2017/cochlear-introduces-the-worlds-first-made-for-iphone-cochlear-implant-sound-processor, accessed 22 March 2024.

55. Ericsson, “5G and Wi-Fi: Charting a path towards superior indoor connectivity” (Ericsson official website) https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/5g-and-wi-fi-path-toward-superior-indoor-connectivity, accessed 22 March 2024.

56. Accenture, “The future is 5G—Frequently Asked questions?” (Accenture official website, 2024) https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights/5g-index#accordion-286da373b5-item-ea5eaf3129, accessed 22 March 2024.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid.

59. A. M. Rahmani, W. Szu-Han, K. Yu-Hsuan and M. Haghparast, “The Internet of Things for Applications in wearable technologies” (IEEEXplore, November 2022) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9963553, accessed 4 March 2024; More for the importance of 5G for IoB in: PWC, 5G In Healthcare: PwC (PWC official website) accessed 22 March 2024; and IHS Markit, “The 5G Economy in a Post-COVID-19 Era: The role of 5G in a post-pandemic world economy” (November 2020) https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qcomm-martech/dm-assets/documents/qualcomm_5g_economy_in_a_post-pandemic_era_report_2020.pdf at page 16, accessed 22 March 2024.

60. Krunal Pandav, AG Te, Nir Tomer, SS Nair, AK Tewari, “Leveraging 5G technology for robotic surgery and cancer care” Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2022 Aug;5(8):e1595. doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1595. Epub 2022 Mar 9. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9351674/, accessed 22 March 2024.

61. Celik and Eltawil (n 15) 5; see also Ericsson, “Internet of Senses” (Ericsson official website) https://www.ericsson.com/en/6g/internet-of-senses, accessed 22 March 2024.

62. About 3GPP (3GPP official website) https://www.3gpp.org/about-us, accessed 22 March 2024.

63. About ETSI (ETSI official website) https://www.etsi.org/about, accessed 22 March 2024.

64. See Spyros Makris and Haris Tsilikas, “Standard Essential Patents and Injunctions: The Key Role of Good Faith in Major Jurisdictions,” IEEE Communications Standards Magazine, December 2021, 1. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9696261, accessed 22 March 2024. Companies that contribute to 3GPP devote time and resources for the purpose of technological advancement and increased social welfare. For example, it is reported that since the beginning of the development of the 5G standard, 3GPP has received almost one million written contributions, more than half of which come from specific industry players. The companies with the most contributions are (alphabetically): Ericsson, Huawei, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung, and ZTE. See Lorenzo Casaccia, Urška Petrovčič & Karyn Vuong, “Understanding the Difference Between Participants and Contributors in a Standard-Development Process” (Competition Policy International Columns, Intellectual Property, February 2024) Understanding the Difference Between Participants and Contributors in a Standard-Development Process (pymnts.com), accessed 22 March 2024.

65. Jean-Sébastien Borghetti, Igor Nikolic & Nicolas Petit (2021) “FRAND licensing levels under EU law,” European Competition Journal, 17:2, 206, DOI: 10.1080/17441056.2020.1862542. Also available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3532469, accessed 22 March 2024.

66. See Section 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy at: https://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf, accessed 22 March 2024.

67. This is illustrated in the Policy Objectives of the ETSI IPR Policy (Section 3.1 and 3.2). For more information see: ETSI IPR Policy at: https://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf, accessed 22 March 2024.

Regarding the investments in R&D see: Georgios Effraimidis and Kirti Gupta, “5G standards and the stark divide between innovators and implementers,” IAM, 8. June 2022, https://www.iam-media.com/article/5g-standards-and-the-stark-divide-between-innovators-and-implementers and https://www.4ipcouncil.com/research/5g-standards-and-stark-divide-between-innovators-and-implementers, accessed 22 March 2024.

Jean-Sébastien Borghetti, Igor Nikolic & Nicolas Petit (2021), “FRAND licensing levels under EU law,” European Competition Journal, 17:2, 206, DOI: 10.1080/17441056.2020.1862542. Also available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3532469, accessed 22 March 2024.

68. Alexander Galetovic and Stephen Haber, “SEP royalties: What theory of value and distribution should courts apply?,” The Ohio State Technology Law School Journal, Vol 17.2
(2021), 208 at https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Galetovic_Haber.pdf, accessed 22 March 2024.

69. For more information on the value of patents for innovation see Maureen K. Ohlhausen, “Patent Rights in a Climate of Intellectual Property Rights Skepticism,” Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 30 (2016) https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v30/30HarvJLTech103.pdf, accessed 22 March 2024.

70. European Commission, Standard Essential Patents (European Commission official website) https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/industry/strategy/intellectual-property/patent-protection-eu/standard-essential-patents_en, accessed 22 March 2024.

71. Mathieu Klos, “Under no circumstances should the EU create a regulatory SEP monster,” JUVE Patent, 4 March 2024 https://www.juve-patent.com/legal-commentary/under-no-circumstances-should-the-eu-create-a-regulatory-sep-monster/.

72. European Commission, Standard Essential Patents (European Commission official website) https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/industry/strategy/intellectual-property/patent-protection-eu/standard-essential-patents_en, accessed 22 March 2024.

73. Ibid.

74. See indicatively IPEurope, “LIVE BLOG: Third-party comments on the European Commission’s proposal to regulate standard-essential patents (SEPs),” https://ipeurope.org/blog/live-blog-third-party-comments-on-the-european-commissions-seps-proposal/, accessed 22 March 2024.

75. According to a study financed by the European Commission, “[e]xisting empirical evidence on the causal effects of current SEP licensing conditions is largely inconclusive. Empirically observable outcomes do not indicate the existence of pervasive “opt-out” from standards-related innovation as a consequence of SEP licensing conditions; i.e., it does not appear that the observed challenges in SEP licensing are sufficiently severe as to systematically discourage potential contributors from participating in standards development, or discourage potential implementers from creating products that use technology standards subject to potential SEPs.” At Justus Baron et al., Empirical Assessment of Potential Challenges in SEP Licensing (LexisNexis website, May 2023), at pg. 185, https://www.lexisnexisip.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Empirical-Assessment-of-Potential-Challenges-in-SEP-Licensing.pdf.

See also Justus Baron, “The Commission’s Draft SEP Regulation—Focus on Proposed Mechanisms for the Determination of ‘Reasonable Aggregate Royalties’.” 4iPCouncil, 10 August 2023, https://www.4ipcouncil.com/research/commissions-draft-sep-regulation-focus-proposed-mechanisms-determination-reasonable-aggregate-royalties.

76. Mohammad Ataul Karim, “The Proposed EU SEP Regulation: Checking Balancing Incentives, and compatibility with EU Fundamental Rights, and the TRIPS Regime,” 4iPCouncil, 04 July 2023, https://www.4ipcouncil.com/research/proposed-eu-sep-regulation-checking-balancing-incentives-and-compatibility-eu-fundamental-rights-and-trips-regime; Wayne Chinembiri, “EC Draft SEP Regulation and the TRIPS Agreement Compatibility Assessment,” 4iPCouncil, 4 July 2023, https://www.4ipcouncil.com/research/ec-draft-sep-regulation-and-trips-agreement-compatibility-assessment.

77. These concerns were raised by the European Intellectual Property Judges Association (IPJA) in a letter to the European Commission on 29th October 2023, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joff-wild-6a80bb8_former-england-and-wales-court-of-appeal-activity-7125581578033840133.

78. Claudia Tapia, “Building the house from the roof down: The Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Draft Regulation,” 2023, The Patent Lawyer, https://patentlawyermagazine.com/building-the-house-from-the-roof-down-the-standard-essential-patent-sep-draft-regulation/.

79. Joff Wild, “The European Commission’s SEP licensing plans are terrible on every level,” IAM, 30 March 2023, https://www.iam-media.com/article/jw-column-30th-march-2023-ec-sep-licensing-plans.

80. Avanci, https://www.avanci.com/.

81. Unified Patent Court, https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en.

82. European Commission, SWD(2023)124—Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standard essential patents and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/com2023232-proposal-regulation-standard-essential-patents_en, pg. 114.

83. Patrick McCutcheon, “The European Commission’s SEPs proposal is an own goal. It should be rejected.” (IAM, 24 February 2024) https://www.iam-media.com/article/the-european-commissions-seps-proposal-own-goal-it-should-be-rejected, accessed 22 March 2024.