Author : OM KUMAR Course: B.A.L.L.B. (2024-2029), a Student of Lloyd Law College
- Title
“Inventions By Artificial Intelligence: The New Frontier of Patent Law Challenges”
- Meta Title
Legal Difficulties in Patent Laws Regarding AI Created products.
- Meta Description
This article focuses on the intricacies of the developing legal context surrounding the self- generating technology and its impact over the existing patenting laws.
- Introduction
Intellectual property law is being radically disrupted by technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI). As AI systems become more advanced, they are not only helping humans to invent, but are also inventing on their own. As such, there is a fundamental legal question: when an AI invents something, who owns the intellectual property (IP) rights? In particular, can an AI be considered an inventor under existing patent law frameworks, which require inventors to be human?
This question has already led to important legal discussions and court cases in many jurisdictions. Countries are trying to figure out how to deal with AI-generated inventions under their patent laws. Some are on the way to recognizing AI as an inventor, while others are saying that human inventors are the only ones who should get patent rights. This article tries to look at the development with respect to AI- related patent law issues.
6. Tags/Keywords
AI creations, patent legislation, IP itself, Intelligence, issues with the law, owning a patent, legal issues regarding AI, what is IP, patent and AI innovations, artificial intelligence law, AI Patent Law, AI products.
- Main Blog
An Analysis of the Problems Associated with AI-Created Inventions
Traditionally, patent law requires that the inventor must necessarily be a human being. The existence of AI systems that can create inventions contradicts this law. In 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) encountered a difficult issue when Dr. Stephen Thaler – a researcher into artificial systems – made use of an AI system called DABUS to file patents. The application was rejected because, as per the law, there has to be at least one human inventor.
This case demonstrates the existing legal ambiguities at the core of the debate of whether or not machines can be classified as inventors in the domain of patents. The same problem has existed in the EU and the UK with the EPO and the UKIPO also dismissing applications with AI as the inventor.
Legal Developments and New Changes
Certain jurisdictions have started to accommodate the phenomenon of AI-inventions. One such example is in 2021 when the Australian Federal Court permitted the name of an AI as the inventor in applications for a patent. This was a huge change since it showed that some countries using the law in a different light and thinking to redefine patent laws in the AI context.
Nonetheless, even in areas that may accept AI-generated inventions, there is a more overarching issue to consider.
Yet, even in places where AI-created inventions might be accepted, there is a bigger question: who is the patent holder? Do the rights to these patents belong to the creators of the AI systems, the operators of the AI, or the AI itself?
The Controversy Surrounding the Acceptance of AI as an Inventor
Supporting AI as an inventor argue that if AI is able to create new inventions that are not obvious, then it should be granted the innovation for that similar to how a person is given. This would also result in more inventions being made, promoting further advancement of AI technologies. On the opposite side, others believe in a converse view claiming that patent laws are put in place to foster creativity and innovation by people. Including machines on the list of inventors may blur the intent behind patents and create a lack of responsibility.
Possible Consequences on Patent Systems
Granting legal allowance of AI-created inventions will require adjustments in the functioning of patent systems across the globe. This may call for revision of guides within patent offices in the context of AI associated inventions including the setting of new conditions detailing the ownership of patents with respect to the AI systems. These shifts may have broad impacts on many markets like pharmaceuticals to software engineering and hardware construction, while AI will technologically lead these industries.
Additionally, as far as the various stakeholders in the creation of AI are concerned, the question of who owns the patent now becomes much more complicated. Is it the company for which the individual who built the AI application works? Is it the individual who created the code? Or perhaps, it is the organization that used the algorithms to process large volumes of data? These are all issues that need to be solved by lawyers sooner than later.
- Conclusion:
The ability of an AI to make new inventions is one of the most captivating prospects of technology, which is why it is so concerning when one considers patent laws. As long as technology progresses beyond the current limitations, the legal arena will be forced to change to accommodate the reality that exists. While a few countries have successfully grappled with the dilemma, the question of whether an AI should be designated an inventor is still contentious and remains unanswered in most countries. It is probably reasonable to assume that sooner or later, all countries will need to cooperate to set comprehensive rules of patent law pertaining to inventions created by artificial intelligence.
9.References:
- Thaler v. USPTO, 2020, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
- Australian Federal Court ruling on AI as inventor (2021).
- European Patent Office (EPO) guidelines on AI and patents.
- UK Intellectual Property Office’s stance on AI-generated inventions.
- “Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: New Frontiers” – Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 2021.
