The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has introduced a new policy on intellectual property law; the recent guidance allows patents for AI-generated inventions to be filed by humans. As long as the human contribution was significant and the invention is fully appreciated and recognised, a patent can be filed. However, this policy still leaves open the question of ownership for such AI technology.
In an increasingly digital world, AI systems are now more than capable of generating valuable products which would be patentable, were they created by humans. In the past, attempts have been made to get these patents granted to AI technology, but they have been consistently rejected by courts. The warnings have persisted that unless the maneuvering of these patent opportunities doesn’t branch out from solely being human oriented, the innovation could potentially be stifled, and economic growth may be undermined in the future.
Despite this, the new USPTO guidance permits and welcomes a path for human claims on AI productions, emphasizing that the patent system is for human innovation and that AI systems should not be considered inventors on patent applications. The caveat is that the human in question must play an essential role in the creation of an invention for it to qualify for a patent claim. There is a responsibility for the named inventor(s) to make a significant contribution to the conception of the invention.
Nonetheless, questions about the ownership of patent rights continue to remain unanswered. In order to clarify matters, the guidance suggests that multiple owners should be allowed to own indivisible property according to the value of their relative interests, taking a cue from the ancient doctrine of accession. However, there is still a lack of clarity in situations where both an AI user and an AI developer could claim to be inventors of the same product.
Furthermore, the USPTO examiners can request proof of significant contributions from inventors. Therefore, aspiring inventors utilizing AI must ensure a complete understanding of the subject matter of the invention they are seeking to patent. Lastly, AI owners should not assume that owning the AI model also entails ownership over all its creations, adding to the complexity of this patent and ownership conundrum.
Arjun Padmanabhan an Associate Attorney at Cole Schotz, has discussed in-depth the USPTO guidance on AI-assisted inventions in his article on Bloomberg Law. You can read in detail about his views on the same via this link.