Earlier this year, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) received hundreds of submissions commenting on the Draft Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence. Contemporaneously, the notable DABUS cases were rejected by the EPO, UKIPO, and USPTO on the ground that AI cannot be named as inventor. The uncertainty in the ownership/inventorship of AI technology could impede investment and development of AI technology. This article aims to look into the WIPO submissions and arguments for addressing AI inventorship. Considering balancing the incentive of fostering AI technology and genuine inventorship, this article suggests seeing AI as a tool, or a pet, and that requiring the applicant to disclose any AI technology involved is the better resting place.
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 9: USPTO Responds to GAO Report; Stewart Welcomes National Inventors Hall of Fame Inductees; CAFC Defines ‘Ground’ for IPR Estoppel Statute
- PTAB Designates as Informative Stewart Decision on Discretion to Institute in Context of Parallel District Court Litigation
- Judge Hughes Again Calls Out CAFC’s Overly Rigid Article III Analysis for Pharmaceutical Cases
- Coke Stewart’s Recent Show Cause Order Offers Hope for Addressing Serial Patent Challenges
- The USPTO Should Reintroduce the AFCP Program—Now