Protection of patent law objects, created by artificial intelligence (AI) technologies

Keywords: patent law, invention, patentability, human inventor, artificial intelligence (AI) inventor.

Abstract

The aim of the article is to solve the scientific problem of outlining the issue of protection of patent law objects created using artificial intelligence technologies, and to establish whether it is possible to recognize artificial intelligence technologies as inventor at the present stage of development of legal systems. Philosophical, comparative-legal and system-structural methods were used in the research process. Based on the analysis of the European Patent Convention, the main generally accepted conditions of patentability of the invention are determined: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability. It has been established that inventions created by artificial intelligence technologies will meet such criteria provided that certain requirements are met. In the context of the study, the case of the invention of artificial intelligence «DABUS» is analyzed and the results of its consideration in the European Patent Organization, the United Kingdom and the United States are summarized. In particular, it has been established that artificial intelligence technologies are currently not considered as inventors in either the Romano-Germanic or Anglo-Saxon legal systems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Olha Pavlyuk, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs,  Lviv, Ukraine.

Postgraduate student of the Civil Law Disciplines Department, Institute of Law, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs,  Lviv, Ukraine.

Nataliia Parasiuk, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Candidate of Law, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Criminal Law Department, Institute of Law,  Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Alona Dutko, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Candidate of Law, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Civil Law Disciplines Department, Institute of Law,  Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Vasyl Parasiuk, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Candidate of Law, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Theory of Law, Constitutional and Private Law   Department, Institute of Specialist Training for National Police Units, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Oksana Stasiv, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Lviv, Ukraine.

Candidate of Law, Associate Professor,  Associate Professor of the  Social Law Department,  Faculty of Law, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Lviv, Ukraine.

References

Abbott, R. (2016). I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law. Boston College Law Review, 57(4), 1079-1126.

Abbott, R. (2019, May 28). Everything is obvious. Intellectual Property Watch. Recovered from https://www.ip-watch.org/2019/03/25/everything-is-obvious/.

Blok, P. (2017). The inventor’s new tool: artificial intelligence – how does it fit in the European patent system? European intellectual property review, 39(2). 69-73.

Borella, M. (2018, November 25). How to draft patent claims for machine learning inventions. Patentdocs. Recovered from https://www.patentdocs.org/2018/11/how-to-draft-patent-claims-for-machine-learning-inventions.html.

García Rodríguez, E., Duque Arias, D., Manrique, R,. & Giraldo, F. (2020). El Uso de Sistemas Inteligentes (IA) en el Registro de Propiedad Industrial. Revista La Propiedad Inmaterial, 30, 295-326. Retrieved from 10.18601/16571959.n30.11

EPO. (1998). Case T-1173/97 Computer Program Product/IBM, Technical Board of Appeal. Recovered from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t971173ex1.pdf.

EPO. (2020). Grounds for the EPO decision of 27 January 2020 on EP 18 275 163. Recovered from https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=E4B63SD62191498&number=EP18275163&lng=en&npl=false.

EPO. (2021). Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office. Recovered from https://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/C4B20952A0A7EF6BC125868B002A5C61/
$File/epo_guidelines_for_examination_2021_hyperlinked_en.pdf.

Fraser, E. (2016). Computers as Inventors – Legal and Policy Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Patent Law. SCRIPTed, 13(3), 305-333.

Frueh, A. (2019). Transparency in the Patent System – Artificial Intelligence and the Disclosure Requirement. Žaneta Pacud and Rafał Sikorski, (3), 1-15.

García, L. S (2018). Invenciones generadas por inteligencia artificial y sus implicaciones para el derecho de patentes. Informática y Derecho: Revista Iberoamericana de Derecho Informático (segunda época), (5), 49-84.

Gargallo, M. D. M. M. (2020). El concepto de inventor en el derecho de patentes y los sistemas de inteligencia artificial. Cuadernos de derecho transnacional, 12(2), 510-526.

Hashiguchi, M. (2017). The Global Artificial Intelligence Revolution Challenges Patent Eligibility Laws. Journal of Business & Technology Law, 13(1), 1-36.

Hattenbach, B., & Glucof, J. (2015). Patents in an Era of Infinite Monkeys and Artificial Intelligence. Stanford Technology Law Review, 32, 33-51.

Mclaughlin, M. (2018). Computer-Generated Inventions. American University Washington College of Law, 39, 1-32.

Nurton, J. (2020, September 24). UK judge upholds refusal of DABUS patents. Ipwatchdog. Recovered from https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/09/24/uk-judge-upholds-refusal-dabus patents/id=125584/.

Rich, M. (2016). Machine Learning, Automated Suspicion Algorithms, and the Fourth Amendment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, (164), 871-930.

Sánchez, E. G. (2019). La Patentabilidad de la Inteligencia Artificial. Compatibilidad con otros sistemas de protección. La Ley mercantil, (59), 4.

Thaler, v Iancu et al (1:20-cv-00903). Court Listener. In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 2020. Recovered from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.483404/gov.uscourts.vaed.483404.1.0.pdf.

The European Patent Convention. (1973). European Patent Office. Recovered from https://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/53A0FE62C259803BC12586A90058BCAD/
$File/EPC_17th_edition_2020_en.pdf.

Tull, S., & Miller, P. (2018). Patenting Artificial Intelligence: Issues of Obviousness, Inventorship, and Patent Eligibility. The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law, 1(5), 313-325.

UK Intellectual Property Office. (2019). Patent Decision BL O/741/19 of 4 December 2019. Recovered from https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-challenge-decision-results/o74119.pdf.

United States Patent and Trademark Office. USPTO. (2019). «Petition decision: Inventorship limited to natural persons». Recovered from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/16524350_22apr2020.pdf?utm_campaign=subscriptioncenter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name
=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=.

Vertinsky, L. (2017). Thinking Machines and Patent Law. Emory Legal Studies Research Paper, (1), 1-23.
Published
2021-09-29
How to Cite
Pavlyuk, O., Parasiuk, N., Dutko, A., Parasiuk, V., & Stasiv, O. (2021). Protection of patent law objects, created by artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Amazonia Investiga, 10(44), 230-240. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.44.08.22
Section
Articles