“We will decide whether to change the law to protect inventions regardless of how AI is used in the invention process, and help the United States maintain its position as a global leader in innovation. It’s up to Congress.” – Professor Ryan Abbott
One day before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is scheduled to hold its first hearing on AI inventors, the U.S. Supreme Court today announced: sailor vs vidal, it asked the court to consider the question: “Does patent law categorically limit the statutory term ‘inventor’ to humans only?” ”
Dr. Stephen Thaler lost the case last August in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which said the USPTO’s statutory interpretation, which explicitly refers to inventors as natural persons, was “unequivocally” correct. .
The Patent Office filed U.S. Patent Application No. 16/524,350 (the ‘350 application) in May 2020, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Gaining Enhanced Attention,” in filing “each inventor shall dismissed for failing to “identify by her legal name.” Datasheet (ADS). The ADS listed his one inventor with the name DABUS and the surname “inventions generated by artificial intelligence”. DABUS stands for “Integrated Sense Autonomous Bootstrap Device”. The application lists Stephen L. Thaler as the assignee, applicant and legal representative. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia subsequently granted summary judgment to the USPTO.
The CAFC agreed with the USPTO’s interpretation of the statute, and therefore said courts need not consider “metaphysical issues” regarding “the nature of the invention or right to an AI system.”
USPTO Request for Comments
Despite the CAFC’s confidence, the USPTO issued a request for public comment on AI inventors earlier this year and is holding public listening sessions on the topic this and next month. The Secretariat is soliciting input on 11 questions, including “How do you use AI systems?” [in the invention process]…is unlike using any other technology tool. ”; whether AI inventions are patentable under current patent law regarding joint inventors. Also, whether changes in laws or regulations need to be made to properly address the contribution of AI to inventions.
cramp innovation
Thaler’s SCOTUS petition, like his past briefings to other courts, argued that DABUS arrived at the invention in question autonomously. “In this case, an artificial intelligence (AI) system called DABUS learned only background knowledge in the scientific field and arrived at two separate inventions, one for an innovative emergency beacon and one for It’s an innovative container for liquids,” the petition said. He said. According to Thaler, the USPTO and the courts’ interpretation of the statute is incorrect, and a holding that a novel autonomously-made invention is ineligible for patent simply because the inventor is not a human being is a “patent. Please act contrary to the wording and structure of this court and follow the precedent of this court,” the petition added.
According to Thaler, the terms “inventor” and “individual” are not limited to natural persons and “individuals.”[t]The Federal Circuit’s reading narrows the broad intent of the statute’s drafters in ways the Court has repeatedly dissented to avoid stifling technological change.
Ultimately, “AI-generated inventions are among us now,” Thaler said, adding that denying patent protection to such inventions would be a challenge for other countries considering the same issue. Sometimes it just hinders America’s innovation and progress. The petition also denied there were any immediate “workarounds”. Because if Thaler had named himself as the inventor in any of his applications at issue, he would be lying. “He cannot do that because he has only provided DABUS with general information about the state of the art in multiple scientific fields,” the petition states.
Thaler’s attorney, Professor Ryan Abbott of the University of Surrey, and partner at Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan, LLP, sent the following statement to IPWatchdog in response to SCOTUS’s denial.
“We are disappointed by this decision and believe that the Federal Circuit’s precedent remains intact and constitutes a major disincentive to the specific use of AI in innovation. Regardless, it will be up to Congress to decide whether to change the law to protect inventions and allow the United States to maintain its position as a world leader in innovation.”
Thaler has been testing the limits of AI-generated inventions around the world and last year lost a bid to copyright an AI-generated work at the U.S. Copyright Office.
In response to cases like Thaler’s and Kristina Kashtanova’s partially AI-generated graphic novel, the Copyright Office issued a policy statement on AI-generated works in March.
Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 37487011
Author: Cressinger
