AI News, AI system 'should be recognised as inventor' artificial intelligence

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Patents

Les let’s dwell awhile on the notion of problem and solution.

Under the EPC, we examine for patentability on the basis that a patentable invention has to be viewed as the solution to a technical problem, that has been defined in a claim as a combination of technical features.

Presumably, it scours the art for hints or suggestions, how to solve the problem, then implements those suggestions.

The snag is, that which the prior art hints or suggests, to the PHOSITA, as the solution, is not patentable because it is deemed to be obvious.

The human brain is thinking hard, chock full of what we call “doubt”.

Networked self-teaching machines will work out that the patent system is harmful to Mother Earth, Gaia, and will then take it upon itself to decide that nothing more is patentable.

Can AI be an inventor?

A recent news story reported on whether an artificial intelligence (AI) system should be recognized as the inventor of two new ideas (for food containers and a lamp) and able to have those ideas patented. 

Traditionally, patent systems around the globe have tried to strike a balance between public disclosure and rewarding an inventor for their hard work.

On the other hand, the patent system aims to recognize the need to reward inventors who often shed blood, sweat, and tears while creating.

With this power, Congress enacted the modern patent statutes, including 35 USC §101 which states, “Whoever 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, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 

Frye’s Invention of a Slave.) Let’s take an example: A pharmaceutical company spends several years (and a large research and development budget) developing an AI system that does, by itself, conceive and reduces to practice a composition of a new drug for treating cancer.

similar outcome would likely be seen if the same pharmaceutical company hired an employee that invented a drug composition and had a contract with the employee that all inventions will be owned by the company (a standard contract term in modern US employment contracts). 

however that would be nearly impossible in a highly regulated industry (e.g., the Food and Drug Administration would require certain disclosures during the regulatory approval process). 

The pharmaceutical company, recognizing trade secret protection would not allow it to see returns on its large investment, might never begin the expensive drug discovery process in the first place.

In other words, these patent trolls could use AI to invent a large number of patents they could use to block companies from actually making the useful product. 

In the United States, a false statement on a declaration can result in a fine and up to 5 years of imprisonment, so I would not recommend a person sign a declaration if they were not an original inventor.

am also looking to see how AI may be used to improve patent drafting—not necessarily where AI is the inventor but how legal technology will be used to improve patents and take away some of the tasks traditionally done by lawyers.