• [email protected]
Aurora Consulting
  • Home
  • Services
    • Patent Portfolio Strategy
    • Patent Search and Analysis
  • About
    • Team
      • Ashley Sloat, Ph.D.
      • Kristen J. Hansen, M.S.
      • Tiffany C. Miller, Ph.D.
      • Albert Du, J.D.
      • Alisa McCarthy
      • Joanna Moore
      • Josh Sloat
      • David Jackrel, Ph.D.
    • Testimonials
    • Work Examples
  • Blog
  • Shorts
    • Mossoff Minute
  • Podcast
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Services
    • Patent Portfolio Strategy
    • Patent Search and Analysis
  • About
    • Team
      • Ashley Sloat, Ph.D.
      • Kristen J. Hansen, M.S.
      • Tiffany C. Miller, Ph.D.
      • Albert Du, J.D.
      • Alisa McCarthy
      • Joanna Moore
      • Josh Sloat
      • David Jackrel, Ph.D.
    • Testimonials
    • Work Examples
  • Blog
  • Shorts
    • Mossoff Minute
  • Podcast
  • Contact

​​Patently Strategic Musings

Rise of the Machines as Inventors

3/8/2020

3 Comments

 
Picture
Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay
Machines are now capable of independent innovation, but should a machine be named as the inventor? Machines do not have legal personalities but does the public have the right to know who (or what) actually conceived of the invention? 

Why it matters: According to an article published in Artificial Intelligence Technology and The Law, there has been a steady increase from 2008 to 2017 in issued patents in fields such as artificial intelligence, neural networks, and machine learning. It’s easy to fathom that this trend will continue and likely exhibit increasing complexity while requiring less human input into the resultant innovation.

The big picture: The United States Patent and Trademark Office in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure states that "The threshold question in determining inventorship is who conceived the invention. Unless a person contributes to the conception of the invention, he is not an inventor.” 
• A machine named DABUS was recently listed as the inventor on two European patent applications EP18275174.3 and EP18275163.6. In both cases, during appeal, the application was rejected for failing to designate an inventor in compliance with the European Patent Convention. These decisions raise a few questions:  
1. In the absence of machine legal personality, should a company or an otherwise owner of the machine be listed as the inventor? If yes, does listing the owner of the machine (as opposed to the actual machine) as the inventor truly comply with the rule of the various patent offices? 
2. In a world where machines can be listed as inventors, how do we prevent companies from listing the machine (potentially easier legally because more “control”) and bypassing a true human inventor?
3. What do the frameworks look like for determining machine inventorship?
• There is huge upside for machine-driven innovation in fields such as drug discovery, pathology, diagnostics, and big data analytics. However, at least for drug discovery and related disciplines, human intervention in the innovation process remains critical for identifying synthesizable, efficacious, and safe compounds. 

The bottom line: So at least for the time being, the answer to this question while important, lacks urgency and depends on more thought and information.  
​
Go deeper: The Artificial Inventor Project
3 Comments
Michael J. Ram
3/8/2020 01:24:52 pm

In response to: "The bottom line: So at least for the time being, the answer to this question while important, lacks urgency and depends on more thought and information."
The matter DOES NOT lack urgency. Because of the large number of patent applications involving AI on file and likely to be filed within the next few years there is an urgent need for rules and/or legislation that the establishes a protocol for such applications to be recognized as patentable subject matter. Properly programmed computers fed relevant prior art are research tools; the inventors should be the individuals or team of inventors who set up the instructions implemented by the computer and established the necessary data base or provide the instructions to the computer to identify the appropriate data bases. The applicant would be the parent entity (organization) comprising those individuals. who would assign there patent rights to that entity.

Reply
Ashley Sloat link
3/8/2020 04:32:21 pm

Hi Michael, Thank you for your comment! While this blog post does not discuss the patent eligibility of software innovations, I do agree that these innovations do need to be patent eligible. Regarding your comments on inventorship, while I agree that this is currently the protocol, the facts of the DABUS case discussed in the blog post (more details in the file histories of the respective cases) do not follow this paradigm and as such, suggest that a new paradigm of inventorship is needed (the subject of the blog post). Thank you again and have a great Sunday evening.

Reply
David Cohen
3/9/2020 10:49:03 am


I’m going to be a sceptic on this AI-as an inventor topic. I’ve read the WIPO article https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2019/06/article_0002.html . And I’ve also read the materials that Ashley shared in the Dabus-related topic in her “Patently Strategic Musing” series.
1. I agree with Ashley’s conclusion that while this question is provocative and may eventually be important, it lacks urgency and depends on more thought and information.
2. If the client wanted to create a stir, give a TED talk, then this is fine as a gambit and as an expression of a true AI/ machine learning believer. On the other hand, if the client wanted a patent, why would an attorney do this AI inventor thing? Seems to me, just asking for trouble.
3. My understanding of AI (admittedly limited) is that it’s empirical and relational. It’s capable of drawing in vast amounts of data and identifying relationships within the data, all this in a completely agnostic manner, not caring or understanding theory or cause etc. Inventorship, in contrast, is conceptual, intimately connected to understanding a problem, and addressing it with intention of solving it, and (usually) understanding the underlying scientific or engineering basics.
4. Why not wait until a patent office issues a rejection citing the absence of a computer operating an AI program as the inventor?
On a related note, IP Watchdog has a Webinar on March 12: “Patent strategy at the intersection life sciences and artificial intelligence”.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Ashley Sloat, Ph.D.

    Startups have a unique set of patent strategy needs - so let this blog be a resource to you as you embark on your patent strategy journey.

    Archives

    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    January 2025
    November 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

AURORA

Portfolio Strategy Services
Patent Search Services
Contact
Testimonials
​Careers
​RISE Award
Disclaimer

TEAM

Ashley Sloat, Ph.D.
Kristen J. Hansen, M.S.
​Tiffany C. Miller, Ph.D.
​Albert Du, J.D.
​Alisa McCarthy
​Joanna Moore
Josh Sloat

EDUCATION

Podcast
Shorts
​Newsletter
​Events
Resources
Aurora Consulting
© Copyright 2013-2025  |  Aurora Consulting LLC ​​