Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Experts warn AI inventorship debate will only heat up


AI legal specialists debated how companies will manage if machines continue to be refused patent inventorship

Panellists from an AIPLA webinar on emerging technologies said that refusing to grant a patent to an AI inventor has the potential to devalue inventorship and could have serious implications for companies that invest heavily in new technologies.

The discussion, on May 13, came on the heels of this year’s decision by the EPO to deny patent applications to an AI system named DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) because a machine is not a human inventor. The EPO also argued that a machine cannot receive a patent because it has no “legal personality” and therefore cannot own a patent right.

Gareth Jones, vice president of intellectual property at Benevolent AI, said that patents are an important part of his company’s business model, which relies on licensing to major pharmaceutical companies so that they can do late-stage research.

His company uses artificial intelligence (AI) to sift through data on the human body, and then uses that data to find new ways to treat diseases. He said there could be serious ramifications if companies like his are not allowed to patent AI creations.

“The fundamental value of our model is the exclusivity the patent provides. It would have an impact on our revenue if we can’t protect the R&D generated by AI,” he said.

AI just a tool?

Richard Kennedy, partner at Venner Shipley in the UK, added that many companies are currently using AI as part of the creative process. He said that in most cases AI is just a tool of invention rather than an inventor by itself. The DABUS patents are an extreme example of inventions created without human interference, he added.

 “I should mention there is debate whether AI inventorship is happening at all. The EPO said that for the foreseeable future, AI is just a tool, and others are saying AI will soon replace humans. We want to fix any gaps in the law about this, so it’s worth asking if humans and AI need the same protection,” he said.

Ryan Abbott, professor of law and health sciences at the University of Surrey in the UK, said that while some technologies are tools in the creative process, some emerging technologies are now replacing human beings.

“However ambiguously we define the creative process, there is an act of invention. The way we will invent in the future will be by using inventive AI, and the way to incentivise that is to have patent protection,” he said.

“The philosophical issue here is about conception of innovation, and if we have patent law to encourage innovation it is important we recognise the contribution to the inventive output. Listing a human inventor instead of the AI devalues inventorship.”

Abbott added that in its justification of its ruling, the EPO did not dispute that DABUS wasn’t inventive. This creates legal problems for companies and research institutions that invent with particularly creative AI because they would not have a human being who could claim inventorship.

“It may not be a problem to lie and say a person invented something if there was only one person involved, but it’s increasingly going to be more difficult to find somebody’s name to put down as the inventor and not have disputes about that. In the US it’s a criminal offence to put down an incorrect name,” he said.

Stating the obvious

Granting patent rights to a machine raises concerns for obviousness. A “skilled person” in the art could never have the equivalent amount of information stored in their brain as an AI with an almost unlimited capacity for data. Abbott argued that AI will naturally raise the bar for obviousness, and in 20 years’ time the test for obviousness will change.

“At a certain point we will have AI general intelligence, or very advanced intelligence, that will be widely used in R&D, and we want to encourage that sort of thing in areas like drug research.

“At that point the ordinary skilled person in the art will also be an AI, so what is non-obvious to the new AI-skilled person will also have to be non-obvious to the AI inventor,” he said.

Jones at Benevolent AI agreed and added: “The level of the skilled person will change once AI becomes more of a commodity and you are no longer need to patent things everyone has access to.”

Kennedy said there is a risk that as companies begin replacing humans with machines, they might feel compelled to keep their discoveries as trade secrets if they feel they cannot get a patent for an AI-generated invention.

“To counterbalance that, if you can list an AI as an inventor and patents are available at the press of button, is there a danger of getting swamped with patents for AI inventions? It is a difficult balance to strike,” he said.  

Striking the right balance will be difficult for legislators and policy makers in the future. However they decide to move forward will have lasting implications not only for IP, but for the way humans and robots invent.


more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers wish the latest manual had more details on Federal Circuit cases and that training materials for design patent examiners were online
Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change