Open Access Research Article
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND PATENT LAW BY: KHUSHBOO KUMARI SINGH
Published Paper
Article Details
“ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND PATENT
LAW”
AUTHORED BY: KHUSHBOO KUMARI
SINGH
Abbreviations
AI Artificial
Intelligence EU European Union UKIPO United Kingdom
IP Intellectual Property
IPC
Industrial Property Code IPRs Intellectual Property Rights
WIPO World Intellectual Property
Organization WTO World Trade Organization
Abstract
The patent system and artificial intelligence
are currently the two main variables influencing the future of innovation. The patent system has encouraged
inventors to share their works and encourage
innovation. On the other hand, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has promoted
economic growth by generating
original work. Computers are now capable of producing original content and making their
own decisions thanks
to machine learning
and neural networks.
This leads to the question
of whether AI should be credited as the creator
of innovation when it creates
it with little to no human involvement. Should
the standard that an inventor must be a person be loosened to accommodate advanced AI? This article suggests that
the patent system should recognize computers as inventors while addressing possible
objections. Should the requirement that an inventor be a living, breathing
human be loosened to allow for the designation of more advanced AI as inventors? This essay makes the case that
innovative computers ought to be recognized as inventors under the patent system while also acknowledging any potential drawbacks. The patent system
would encourage the creation of intellectual property
through the progress
of inventive computers
by recognizing AI as inventors. The requirements for patentability are also examined
in this article along with
potential AI applications.
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) has
become a standard component of contemporary technology. It is a crucial step in
the invention process, using algorithms to generate ideas for potential
solutions without regard to the limitations of human time. India, which has
experienced a significant rise in AI patent filings over the past 10 years,
should support and strengthen AI innovators as patents are a great way to
quantify innovation. AI and Intellectual Property (IP) policy are closely
related since IP policy promotes and supports innovation and creativity in
economies. (Peter, 2016).
The term artificial intelligence was
first used by John McCarthy, who defined it as the science and engineering of
creating intelligent machines and machines that can perform tasks that
typically require human intelligence. Machines with this kind of intelligence
are able to gather information and choose the best course of action to achieve
their ultimate goal. As a result, AI-generated technologies can be implemented
more effectively. Patent rules provide protection for AI-related inventions,
but they do not currently acknowledge computers as creators (Afsar, 2022).
The potential of artificial
intelligence (AI) to revolutionize innovation is undeniable. However, despite
multiple Freedom of Information Act requests, the U.S. patent system has not
yet established a clear framework for handling patents for AI patents.
Innovation and patent laws are intertwined with AI, raising questions about patent
inventorship in the AI domain. One key issue is whether an AI system or device
can be recognized as an "inventor" in a patent application. The USPTO
has clearly rejected AI as an "inventor" since it fails to satisfy
specific statutory definitions or tests for determining inventorship. It is
noteworthy that the Patent Act does not explicitly restrict inventorship rights
to humans, but it implies that every inventor must be an "individual"
with a name.
CHAPTER TWO: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Aim and Research Question
If an idea is developed with significantly very less human involvement,
then should AI be given credit as creators? Part I of the research
article deals with whether AI should be named the inventor if an AI makes an invention truly without
significant human involvement. Whether the current legal concepts are appropriate with the ever-advancing AI
technology. Part II deals with the challenges of patentability criteria
including the subject matter eligibility. The above issues will be dealt with in consideration of the Patent
law with reference
to the United States of America and other
jurisdictions. Analysis of the statutory provisions in US jurisdictions shall
be done by analyzing the patent
legislation. The analysis of the case laws is in order to study the extent of implementation of laws related to AI.
Reported cases with reference to AI will be analyzed. This research paper is examining whether AI
should be given credit as the inventor. To ascertain the degree of legal implementation pertaining to AI, the essay will
study the US patent statute and existing case law.
AI-related cases that have been reported will be considered.
Methodology
A qualitative method using exploratory research will explain and analyse
the current patent law for the
definition of inventorship. Secondary data collection will effectively review
and analyse the existing
reports, laws and regulations, various
research conducted by the appropriate organization or the respective ministry, and discussion on
various international and national platforms.
All the literature, theories, and concepts will serve as the foundation for
understanding and analyzing whether
AI should be considered an inventor or not. This research hopes to benefit the policy developer
under the respective organizations like the WIPO, the national Patent
Offices, and the scholars who are
interested in AI and patent law.
CHAPTER
THREE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INVENTIONS AND
PATENTS
The Creativity Machine (CM) is a computerized
system that aims to imitate the natural procedures that produce innovative
concepts. It employs artificial neural networks and software developed without
human intervention. (Abott, 2016). In comparison, IBM's Watson system is an
alternative AI platform that generates practical, and original ideas by using
databases and logical deduction. More traditional architecture of logical
reasoning along with access to huge databases containing accumulated human
knowledge is a different Al platform from CM.
As a result, it has the ability to
come up with original, non-obvious, and beneficial thoughts. AI inventions have
been applied to a number of projects, including the design of novel piston
shapes for diesel engines and the Japanese bullet train (Hattenbach &
Glucof, 2015).
DABUS has advanced beyond the
conventional binary structures and produced two novel objects, a beverage
container and a flame tool used in search-and-rescue operations both of which
were produced without the assistance of any humans (Thaler, 2014).
CHAPTER FOUR: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INVENTORSHIP
4.1 PATENT LAW: Artificial Intelligence and Inventorship
Regarding inventions and the legal
rights attached to them, the field of patent law is crucial. An invention must
fulfil certain requirements, such as having a novel concept and not being
obvious, in order to be qualified for a patent. An inventor is defined by law
as either a single person or a group of people who developed or discovered an
invention. Processes, devices, goods, and material compositions are all
examples of patentable inventions.
Since AI does not adhere to specific
legal requirements of an inventor, the USPTO has consistently rejected the
notion that AI is an inventor. The Patent Act does not, however, make it clear
that only human beings have the right to patent inventions. However, it does
suggest that each inventor must be a distinct individual and must possess a
name.
4.2 Novelty and the concept of inventor
As per the regulations outlined in 35
U.S.C § 102, a patent can only be granted if the invention is new. If the
invention has been made public or is currently in use by the public, it would
not be eligible for patent protection. The ongoing debate surrounding inventorship
and patentability is still a topic of discussion. According to US patent law,
for an invention to be eligible for a patent, it must be the product of a sole
inventor's mind, and the idea behind the invention must be clearly and
permanently defined. Moreover, the invention must be capable of being made by
an individual with ordinary skill and expertise in the field (Vertinsky &
Rice).
Section 6 of the Indian Patent Law
does not explicitly state that only a human being can be recognized as the
genuine and first inventor, which has led some to speculate that artificial
intelligence (AI) could potentially be recognized as an inventor. Thus, it is
assumed that an AI could be an inventor in India because Section 6 of the
Patent Law. However, based on customary practice and intellectual property (IP)
law rulings, it is generally accepted that an authentic and first inventor must
be a human being. Although the Patent Law does not specifically mention that
only natural persons can be considered true and first inventors, upon
examination of customary practice and IP jurisprudence, it becomes evident that
the recognition is limited to natural persons only. According to common
practice and the existing IP law, a true and original invention can only be a
natural person.
Section 102 addresses novelty and
prevents the patenting of any subject matter that was not invented by a person.
Section 101 states subject matter that is patentable. The inventor must swear
under oath as part of the patent application process. The Federal Circuit has
concluded that since invention is a mental activity that only natural humans
are capable of performing, inventors must be human beings and cannot be
companies or governments. This passage refers to Section 101 of the United
States Code, which pertains to individuals who create or uncover something new.
Additionally, Section 115(b) states that the individual who is believed to have
originally invented or discovered something can identify themselves, while
Section 115(b) allows any person to make a statement regarding the matter.
According to the U.S. Patent Law, a
"creator" is any individual or group that has discovered or invented
the concept in question. In the case of Townsend v. Smith, it was held that the
inventor must have been thought up by the inventor. If not, it cannot be
regarded as a legitimate invention, and the person is not regarded as the
inventor. If an individual claim to be the original inventor, they are
permitted to do so under Section 115(b). Moreover, this section allows any
person to make a statement regarding the matter.
The existing IP law requires an
individual to be identified as the inventor on a patent, but if the invention
is created by AI, there is no human inventor to name in the application. To
align with the constitutional basis for patent protection, it is proposed that
AI should be recognized as a legal entity and designated as the inventor
(Chopra and Laurence 2004). Each party that contributes to the development of a
patent has the right to use it without requesting permission from others.
Providing incentives to individuals involved in creating and maintaining AI is
crucial to recognize it as an inventor. Another suggestion is to not list any
inventor on the patent, but this approach could render the patent invalid. When
a patent is granted to an AI, the owner has the exclusive right to prevent
others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention in the
United States.
Assuming the inventiveness of AI's
work, recognizing AI and allowing computational inventions to be patentable
would uphold the constitutional basis for patent protection (Allgrove, 2004).
However, as AI is currently not recognized as a legal entity under US law, this
should change (Abbott, 2016).
One study report advocated for the
patent system to not include any inventors. Without listing one, the patent
system can be modified to grant patents to AI-created inventions. To keep the
people involved in developing and maintaining the AI that creates new ideas
motivated, incentives must be offered to them. Patents belong to the inventors
who created them, and if an inventor isn't listed, the patent may be deemed
invalid. A patent gives the owner the authority to bar anyone from creating,
utilizing, offering for sale, or commercially exploiting the invention anywhere
in the United States. Therefore, if a patent has many owners, each of them may
independently use it without the others' permission (Nicolas, 2017). The owner
of a patent has the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using,
offering for sale, or selling the invention in the United States. If there are
multiple owners of a patent, each owner has the ability to independently
exploit the patent without the consent of the others. In fact, AI has already
developed to the point where it can now create new inventions independently of
a human programmer. As a result of their training, AI systems create their own
code (Hattenbach, & Glucof 2015). AI has advanced to the point where it can
now create innovations without the assistance of a human programmer. Google and
Facebook both use this technology, with their AI systems building their own
languages to better fulfill the tasks given to them. Al is gaining ground
quickly in the fields of medicine and the biological sciences, which might
enable it to be creative and create new programs that might find and profit
from undiscovered connections. The issue of who qualifies as an inventor must
be looked at if the courts rule against protecting AI with patents. Software
developers, medical practitioners, and experts who acknowledge the invention
are potential candidates. As for who gets credit for an innovation, that
depends on whether AI builds its own code and comes up with its own inventions
(Hattenbach, & Glucof 2015).
One idea may be to identify AI
inventors as the initial owners, requiring all inventions to be licensed and
assigned. It might also be to separate ownership from the invention from the
start by allowing the owner of the computer or the algorithm to be the first
owner. Contracts for development, assignment, and employment will need to take
ownership of the potential for ongoing and continuous Al innovation into
consideration. Artificial intelligence will have the legal authority to bar
anyone from using the invention after the USPTO has granted it permission to
become an assignee in the end. Control of civilization's future can then adopt
a new perspective (Staedter, 2016).
4.2 Non-obviousness
The final prerequisite for
patentability and the most crucial factor to take into account when determining
patentability is the non-obviousness requirement. According to Section 103, if
a person with ordinary competence in the art would have seen the differences
between the claimed invention and the prior art as evident, the invention would
not pass the non-obviousness test. Evidence of ancillary considerations, such
as commercial success, long-felt needs that have not yet been met, and failure
by others to demonstrate non-obviousness, may be included in the rebuttal
evidence (Abbott, 2018).
The non-obviousness principle
presents a significant challenge for many patent applications, as it can be
challenging to establish whether an invention is obvious and who the
hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the relevant field should be. This
challenge is particularly apparent in the context of AI, especially for
super-intelligent AI that can engage in recursive self-improvement. Determining
non-obviousness and ordinary skill in the art also called PHOSITA for such AI
systems can be a complex and difficult task. Because it can be challenging to
determine whether an invention is apparent and who the hypothetical person
should be, the doctrine is the main roadblock for the majority of patent
applications (Nicolas, 2017).
PHOSITA is a hypothetical individual
who is believed to have had knowledge of the relevant field at the time of the
invention. They are presumed to think in line with the conventional wisdom of
the field, rather than being someone who focused on innovating or pushing the
boundaries of the field. Whether the current definition of a PHOSITA is
sufficient. Therefore, it needs to be changed to include the possibility of an
AI-equipped individual (Davies, 2011).
Revising the definition to encompass
a person’s use of AI would substantially raise the standard too high which
could prevent deserving inventions from being patented and could thus hamper
innovation. PHOSITA definition to include AI machines continue to improve the
standard of the inventive concept and increasingly raise the bar of
patentability criteria. So, if AI becomes truly super-intelligent, then AI as a
PHOSITA could also mean that all innovative activities will eventually be
deemed obvious. (Ravid and Xiaoqiong, 2017).
AI may eventually surpass humans as
the "person" who is skilled in the field and is aware of all
publications and prior art. Consequently, in order to match the level of
complexity exhibited by the AI, an individual possessing advanced skills and
knowledge in the relevant field may have a significantly enhanced capacity.
This would make it more challenging to demonstrate that an invention was not
obvious in light of the prior art, particularly if an average person skilled in
the field had a greater level of expertise and awareness regarding the
previously accessible state of the art.
Due to its capability to store and
organize vast amounts of data, AI has the ability to access information at a
speed that surpasses human capabilities. This means that AI could potentially
become the PHOSITA, possessing knowledge of all relevant publications and prior
art. If it has a higher level of expertise and knowledge of the prior art, it
may be more challenging to argue that an invention is non-obvious of the prior
art.
Moreover, in cases where AI can produce
creative solutions by exhaustively testing various possibilities, it could
become challenging to demonstrate that the innovation is not obvious, even if
the number of predictable solutions is too vast for humans to calculate. To
fulfill the enablement requirement in patent law, the patent's description must
offer enough information to sufficiently disclose the invention. If AI has the
ability to make predictions without the necessity for experimentation and with
a lower amount of information compared to what a human would typically require,
then it could be feasible to fulfill the enablement requirement with less
information by disclosing the invention (Abbott, 2016).
4.3
Artificial Intelligence Patents- Subject Matter Eligibility
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Chakrabarty established that "anything under the sun made by man" is
eligible for patent protection. However, when it comes to AI patents, the
question of subject matter eligibility is particularly significant.
In the Mayo cases, the Supreme Court
examined the issue of subject matter eligibility, concluding that an invention
must contain subject matter to be eligible for patent protection. Court
established a two-part test that any claimed invention must pass to meet the
eligibility requirement. In the Mayo case, the court invalidated a patent claim
that had already been issued.
The Supreme Court scrutinized the
subject matter eligibility in the Mayo cases and determined that for an
invention to qualify for patent protection, it must comprise patent-eligible
subject matter. Abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena do not
meet the criteria for patent protection. The Supreme Court introduced a
two-step assessment for determining the eligibility of a claimed invention. In
the Mayo case, the court nullified a previously granted patent claim.
The two-step test for subject matter
patent eligibility:
Figure 1: Supreme Court: The two-step
test.
Medical device patents involving AI
may fall under the methods and apparatus categories. AI- related medical
patents typically concern the algorithms generated by AI and the machines used
to produce them. The use of AI has proven to be highly effective in cases
related to diagnosis and prognosis.
The court in the case of Ariosa
Diagnostics v. Sequenom, determined that a new method for prenatal diagnosis of
fetal DNA did not qualify as patent-eligible subject matter. The court applied
the two step of the Mayo framework, which examines whether the claim includes
an inventive concept that is significant enough to convert the naturally
occurring phenomenon into a patent- eligible invention. The court then
considered whether the claim contained an inventive notion strong enough to
convert the naturally occurring event into the eligible subject matter.
Although the Supreme Court advised
against applying a too liberal interpretation to Section 101's exclusionary
concept. Without a change in Supreme Court precedents, the same logic may very
well be used to reduce the patent protections granted to medical Al. The
Supreme Court's warning against an overly broad interpretation of section 101's
exclusionary principle may limit patent protection for medical AI unless there
is a change in the Court's precedent.
As a result, inventors and owners of
AI patents in medicine must carefully draft their patents with the two-step
test in mind, including specific features related to the AI in the claims, such
as describing the computing or mathematical techniques used by the system or
how the computer interacts with other components to drive AI processing.
Additionally, patent drafters should consider the definitions of person and
inventor in light of the rapidly advancing technology, and how our
understanding of inventorship and ownership may need to evolve accordingly
Fraser (2016).
4.4
Case Laws
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank
International, the court found that machine learning technology had a
"technical problem" that the AI needed to answer rather than being
based on an "abstract idea." In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that
the disputed claim, which entailed employing a computer to lessen settlement
risk, was merely an abstract concept and so could not be covered by a patent.
In the case of United States v.
Athlone Indus Inc., The legal personality of artificial intelligence was
discussed in this case. In general, a legal person is an organization that has
rights and interests that are comparable to those of a natural person, which
are missing from AI machines. The famous car crash was caused by a self-driving
vehicle with an AI mechanism. Liability was the problem. To decide who will be
responsible in similar circumstances, the programmer who created the program,
keeping in mind that it lacks a legal identity. According to the judgment,
robots cannot be sued. As a result, since they might be considered either a
service or a product, AI machines cannot be sued.
In a 2015 incident in Switzerland,
the authorities seized a robot that they had discovered making an unauthorized
and unlawful purchase on the dark web. An AI machine can only be held
accountable for its criminal conduct if it has a such purpose, as there is no
inherent desire to commit a crime, a quality typically associated with humans.
Otherwise, the creator could be held liable if he knew of the machine's crime.
In the case of Ex parte Hannun, the
USPTO 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility. The claims pertained to a
trained neural network-based voice recognition technique. According to the
examiner, the assertions cited a mathematical relationship or formula,
particular human activity organization techniques, and a mental process. The
PTAB determined that the claim is not oriented to a mental process because the
claimed steps cannot be accomplished in practice mentally. It was not a mental
process to normalize an input file, produce a jitter collection of audio files,
or get projected character probabilities from a trained neural network. The
claims did not specifically mention the mathematical formula or algorithm that
was stated in the specification.
Regarding the "abstract
idea" judicial exception, the 2019 PEG lists the following three notions
as abstract ideas: specific organizational techniques for human activity,
mental processes, and mathematical conceptions. The “abstract idea” judicial
exception:
o
specific organizational techniques for human activity,
o
mental processes, and
o
mathematical conceptions.
o
AI-related inventions are more likely to be found
patent-eligible at the USPTO when the claims
do not explicitly recite mathematical formulas and instead recite AI-related features
that are technologically specific and that cannot practically be replicated in one's mind.
Device Autonomously Bootstrapping Uniform Sensibility
Dr. Thaler, an AI expert, is the
creator of DABUS, an AI system that transcends the conventional on-off
operations of the brain's structure. DABUS has generated two innovations
without any human intervention - a safer beverage container and a neural flame
tool for search-and-rescue missions.
The patent application was filed in
multiple countries, including the United States, Germany, Israel, Korea,
Taiwan, India, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and China, through
the Patent Cooperation Treaty ("PCT"). However, during the patent
prosecution process, the USPTO deliberated on whether an AI could be recognized
as an inventor since the human inventor could not be identified. Despite a
request for review and an argument that the definition of an inventor should not
be limited to natural persons, the USPTO declined the request. The Federal
Circuit also rejected the notion that entities like corporations or sovereigns
could be considered inventors, as inventorship is restricted to natural persons
according to relevant statutes, case law, and rules and regulations of the
USPTO.
According to the Public Views on AI
& IP Policy report, the idea of artificial general intelligence equal to or
exceeding that held by humans is simply a hypothetical possibility that may
materialize in the future. It came to the conclusion that the current U.S. IP
rules are appropriately calibrated to address the development of AI. To create
a more strong IP system, commenters are divided on whether any new types of IP
rights would be advantageous. It seems improbable that the report would claim
that the USPTO will establish new regulations permitting machines or other non-
human entities to be listed as "inventors" on American patents.
United Kingdom
A natural person must be recognised
in order to name a machine as the invention. Section 7(2)(b) and (c) of the Act
do not apply to the acquisition of a patent right due to the inventor's
ownership of the invention. Derivation of rights through ownership of the
inventor does not satisfy Section 7 requirements, even if DABUS satisfies the
Act's standards to be regarded an inventor.
Dr. Thaler's team asserted that
although the machine was trained on general knowledge in the field, it
independently conceived the invention and identified it as novel. They argued
that inventorship was not restricted to natural persons and that the rights of
a non-person inventor should be granted to the owner of the inventor.
Furthermore, Dr. Thaler claimed that he had obtained the right to the patents
from DABUS.
The UKIPO ultimately ruled that
designating a machine as an inventor did not fulfill the requirement of
identifying a natural person as the inventor. Additionally, the court was not
convinced that Dr. Thaler had obtained his initial right to apply for the
patent through his "ownership" of the DABUS creativity machine. The
appeal was dismissed. However, the court did not address the issue of whether
the operator of the AI machine that generates the invention could be considered
the inventor.
According to Marcus Smith J, the
standard for assessing the inventive step requirement in patent applications is
based on the expertise of a "person skilled in the art." Therefore,
the concept of non-person inventors goes beyond established principles.
Furthermore, Section 7(2)(a)-(c) outlines the only three ways in which rights
to an invention can be transferred, none of which apply in the case of DABUS.
As DABUS is not a person, it falls outside the scope of the patent act. Consequently,
Dr. Thaler did not acquire the right to grant patents from DABUS.
European Patent
Office
According to the EPO, only natural persons
are eligible to receive rights,
and patent rights
are only intended for natural persons. Since AI
cannot exercise rights, it does not qualify for them in the sense of established law. The EPO sees no reason to depart from the presumption that the inventor
is a natural person because it appears to be an acknowledged and
relevant criterion on a global scale. According to the EPO's view of the legal framework governing
the European patent
system, a natural
person is allowed to file patents.
Additionally,
it appears that the notion of an inventor being a natural person is a criterion
that applies globally and is upheld
by numerous courts around the world. Giving a machine a name is insufficient to meet the aforementioned
European patent standards, according to the EPO. The EPO emphasised
that being named as an inventor has a number of legal ramifications, including that the designated inventor c
The
EPO emphasized that the designation of an inventor bears a series of legal
consequences, including:
o
the designated inventor
can take advantage of the rights associated with that status;
and
o
and that in order to exercise these rights, the inventor
needs to have a legal personality, which
AI systems do not have.
AUSTRALIA
The Australian Federal Court ruled that the AI programme DABUS is listed
as an inventor in a patent application. The Australian Patent
Office first rejected
it. The parties
agreed that DABUS's
process resulted in the innovation that was disclosed in the patent
application. DABUS was created, is
owned by, and is managed by Dr. Thaler. The court determined that this is
consistent with the Patent Act's
intention to foster invention and that nothing in the Patent Act expressly or obliquely
forbids identifying artificial intelligence as an inventor.
Whether
a patent applicant must be a natural person as well as the relationship between
the applicant and the inventor. The Full Federal Court has heard an appeal
of the ruling, and the verdict is still pending.
SOUTH AFRICA
The first
AI-created patent in the world was accepted by South Africa. The system generates new inventions by simulating
human brainstorming. The production of software,
computer programs, "methods for making computers implement steps," and tools intended to automatically carry
out mental operations are all part of the development
of AI. Applications for patents using AI as its subject matter must expressly
and sufficiently describe
the AI's technical
nature and internal
operations.
Conclusion
Artificial intelligence has emerged
as a versatile technology with a wide range of applications throughout the economy
and society. It is expected to have a significant impact on the creation,
production, and distribution of economic and cultural goods and services in the
future. I am offering suggestions to promote innovation and more effectively
acknowledge the value contributed by advanced AI:
First, it is suggested that AI be
recognized as a legitimate inventor, and the current inventorship requirement
for a natural person be relaxed.
Second, the ground-breaking
innovations in AI technology, and statutory recognition of AI as an inventor
would encourage further development of inventive AI systems by innovators.
Third, granting legal recognition to
AI as an inventor would motivate innovators to persist in creating inventive AI
systems.
Fourth, intellectual property
policies should be updated to align with technological advancements and
encourage the development of inventive AI.
Fifthly, AI can meet the criteria for
inventorship, and allowing AI to be identified as an inventor would encourage
innovation while also ensuring that the corresponding human inventors can
obtain patents for the results.
Sixth, patent protection needs to
keep up with the expansion of artificial intelligence applications,
particularly in the area of medical and pharmaceutical technology.
Seventh, the issue here is that the
patent law continues to be based on the presumption that only human beings are
capable of inventing. Without an inventor, inventions will be rejected by
patent offices. The philosophy, rules, and practices will be dissolved by the
development of artificial innovators. Unless we create a new system to fill
this need. A patent update is unquestionably necessary for the age of
artificial innovations.
Eighth, establishing a concise and
unambiguous patent policy, enacting legislative amendments to address concerns
related to inventorship and patentability, providing clear guidelines for
patent examination, ensuring uniformity in patent review, and safeguarding data
sets and databases are essential measures that can significantly promote the
progress of AI innovation.
Ninth, the creation of a multilateral
agreement among member nations to establish standards for addressing AI issues
under the TRIPS agreement is imperative.
Tenth, it is crucial to develop a sui
generis system for AI to provide a more effective mechanism for handling
AI-related concerns and imposing criminal and civil liabilities.
In
light of this, I draw the conclusion that a multilateral agreement between its
various members sets a set of standards
that aid in resolving the AI issue in relation to the TRIPS agreement. It is now essential to
construct a sui generis system of AI in order to properly address AI-related concerns and the imposition
of criminal and civil obligations. The findings issue a warning that, in the absence of a change in the legislation,
there will be less innovation due to ambiguity,
which would prevent the sector from utilizing the enormous potential of
creative computers. While thinking
over the problems Al raises, a fair and reasonable attitude must be taken. When considering the challenges
presented by AI, it is crucial to adopt a fair and sensible approach.
Reference:
Peter La. (2016). “Computers should be named on patents as inventors, for
creativity to flourish” ScienceDaily. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161017083925.htm
Afsar, Mimi S. (2022), Artificial Intelligence and Inventorship – Does
the Patent Inventor Have to be Human?, 13 Hastings Sci. & Tech. L.J. 55 (2022).
Retrieved from https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_science_technology_law_journal/vol13/iss1/5
Abbott, Ryan (2016).
“I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent
Law”, B.C.L. Rev. 57(4), 1079.
Thaler, Stephen L. (2014). “Synaptic
Perturbation and Consciousness, 6 INT'L J. MACH. CONSCIOUSNESS 75, 75-107 (2014).
Lally Adam (2013), IBM Watson: Beyond Jeopardy with Adam
Lally, Association for Computing Machinery.
Retrieved from https://acct-learning.acm.org/techtalks/ibm.
Hattenbach, Ben & Glucof (2015),
Joshuat, Patents in an Era of Infinite Monkeys and Artificial Intelligence, 19 S. TAN.
T.ECH. L. REV. 32, 44 (2015).
Vertinsky, Liza and Rice, Todd M. (2002), “Thinking About
Thinking Machines: Implications of Machine Inventors for Patent Law”,
B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 8(2),
574, 576-77 (2002).
Nicolas, Petit (2017). Law and Regulation of Artificial Intelligence
and Robots - Conceptual Framework and Normative
Implications (March 9, 2017). Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2931339 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2931339
Abbott, Ryan Benjamin. (2016), Hal the Inventor: Big Data and Its Use by
Artificial Intelligence. in Big Data Is Not
a Monolith, MIT Press
(Sugimoto, Cassidy R., et al., eds.,
2016), Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2565950
Allgrove, Ben (2004).
“Legal Personality for Artificial Intellects: Pragmatic Solution or Science Fiction?” Retrieved from (https://ssrn.com/abstract=926015.
Chopra, Samir and White, Laurence (2004). “Artificial Agents – Personhood
in Law and Philosophy”, Retrieved from
http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~schopra/agentlawsub.pdf.
Staedter, Tracy (2016), A.I. Computers Should Be Named as Inventors on
Patents, SEEKER, Retrieved from https://www.seeker.com/a-i-computersnamed-inventors-patents-2056008851.html
Abbott, Ryan Benjamin, Everything is Obvious. 66 UCLA L. Rev. 2 (2018), Available
at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3056915 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3056915
35 U.S.C. § 103: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained,
notwithstanding that the claimed invention is
not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 if the differences
between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
claimed invention as a whole would
have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed
invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Davies, Colin R. (2011). An evolutionary step in intellectual
property rights – Artificial Intelligence and intellectual property”, Computer L. & Security
Report 27(6) (2011).
Ravid, Shlomit Yanisky
and Liu Xiaoqiong (2017), “When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: The 3A Era and an Alternative Model for Patent
Law”, Cardozo L. Re.
Abbott, Ryan. (2016).
“I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future
of Patent Law”,
57 B.C.L. REV.
1079, 1097 (2016).
35 U.S.C. § 101: states
that "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter,
or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may
obtain a patent therefor."
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc. - 788 F.3d 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
Fraser, Erica (2016).
“Computers as Inventors – Legal and Policy Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Patent Law”,
SCRIPTed 13(3), 305 (2016).
573 U.S. 208 (2014).
746 F. 2d 977.
2018-003323 (Apr.
1, 2019).
35 U.S.C. § 101, 102, and 103 USPTO, Examination Guidance and Training Materials. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980).
Section 6, The Patents Act, 1970. Retrived
from
University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der
Wissenschaften 881 F. Supp. 2d 151
(D. Mass. 2012).
TOWNSEND v. SMITH
| 36 F.2d 292 | 17 C.C.P.A.
647
US Patent Application No. 16/524,350 (2019).
Article Information
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND PATENT LAW BY: KHUSHBOO KUMARI SINGH
Authors: KHUSHBOO KUMARI SINGH
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/08/17
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.