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.
Finding a Way Forward: Analyzing Approaches to Artificial Intelligence Inventorship
No Comments
Patent
- Enablement
- Fee Shifting
- Litigation
- Deciding Where to Obtain International Patent Rights
- The New Copyright Small Claims Board Presents Problems for Copyright Owners and Small Businesses
- From Home Security to VoIP: Honoring Black Women Inventors of the Last Half-Century
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, February 26: Tillis Tells Biden to Oppose Anti-IP Efforts at WTO; China Patent Commercialization Jumps 2.5x During 13th Five-Year Plan; Federal Circuit Finds U.S. Navy Liable for Copyright Infringement
- Sarah Boone: the ‘Ironing Table’, Perfected
Recent Posts
- Deciding Where to Obtain International Patent Rights
- The New Copyright Small Claims Board Presents Problems for Copyright Owners and Small Businesses
- From Home Security to VoIP: Honoring Black Women Inventors of the Last Half-Century
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, February 26: Tillis Tells Biden to Oppose Anti-IP Efforts at WTO; China Patent Commercialization Jumps 2.5x During 13th Five-Year Plan; Federal Circuit Finds U.S. Navy Liable for Copyright Infringement
- Sarah Boone: the ‘Ironing Table’, Perfected