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
- Perspectives on the PTAB’s 70% All Claims Invalidation Rate
- Moratorium on State AI Regulation Scrapped in Senate Version of Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’
- Increasing Volume of Patent Deals Could Signal Bounce in Patent Marketplace | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- How the USPTO Could Make a Permanent After-Final Consideration Program Work
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, June 27: EGC Says ‘NERO CHAMPAGNE’ Unduly Exploits Protected Designation of Origin; SCOTUS Seeks SG Views on Skinny Label Issues in Hikma; and a Big Week for Copyrights and AI