The world of intellectual property law is subject to significant turbulence in light of recent developments in technology, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence (AI). Legislation such as 35 U.S.C. §101, which outlines patent eligibility requirements, holds greater weight in modern patent cases, especially since the Supreme Court’s 2014 ‘Alice’ decision. The Alice decision brought forth a two-fold test for evaluating patent eligibility.
The first step involves a determination if “the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept” like an abstract idea—an assessment that directly affects AI innovations. In the event that claims focus on a patent-ineligible concept, the courts then seek an ‘inventive concept’, that is, a feature or combination of features that transcends the ineligible concept itself, imparting the patent with considerable more value than just a patent on the underlying ineligible concept.
The implications are significant, especially for those trying to secure patents for AI innovations who, within the current ‘Alice’ framework, face a difficult path. That is not to say it’s an insurmountable path. As patterns in caselaw illustrate, patent drafters can still navigate this complex scenario and decrease the risk of AI patent claims being dismissed as abstract notions, thereby safeguarding the innovative ideas behind groundbreaking AI applications.