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.
Patent
- Enablement
- Fee Shifting
- Litigation
- Former Commerce, USPTO Heads Push for U.S. to Lead Opposition to Extending WTO’s COVID IP Waiver
- Patent Experts Urge Kanter to Reject Calls to Scrap Avanci Business Review Letter
- Answering the Question, ‘What is the Conservative View of Patent Rights?’
- USPTO, Copyright Office Joint Study on NFTs Could Help Dispel Confusion About IP Ownership in Media Content Underlying Digital Assets
- How French and California Contract Law Would Interpret SEP Patent Owner Obligations Under the ETSI Licensing Declaration
Recent Posts
- Former Commerce, USPTO Heads Push for U.S. to Lead Opposition to Extending WTO’s COVID IP Waiver
- Patent Experts Urge Kanter to Reject Calls to Scrap Avanci Business Review Letter
- Answering the Question, ‘What is the Conservative View of Patent Rights?’
- USPTO, Copyright Office Joint Study on NFTs Could Help Dispel Confusion About IP Ownership in Media Content Underlying Digital Assets
- How French and California Contract Law Would Interpret SEP Patent Owner Obligations Under the ETSI Licensing Declaration