Artificial Intelligence Designated as Inventor – An Analysis of the Recent EPO Case Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (9) ◽  
pp. 918-924
Author(s):  
Martin Stierle
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Patent Applications ◽  
Artificial Intelligence Systems

Abstract This paper will focus on the issue of designating artificial intelligence systems as inventors in the current framework of European patent law. Most recently, the European Patent Office rejected two patent applications which indicated a machine called DABUS as the inventor of the claimed subject-matter. The paper will analyse the grounds of the decisions in detail, thereby reflecting on the current approach of the European Patent Office to such designations and on the concept of inventorship within the European patent system in general.

No Need for ‘Plausibility’ in German Patent Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Ackermann
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Inventive Step ◽  
German Patent

Abstract In the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), increasing importance is being attached to the concept of ‘plausibility’, which, however, has no literal basis in the EPC. Nevertheless, many decisions in which inventive step (Art. 56 EPC) is assessed address the question of whether the claimed solution was at least ‘plausible’ at the effective date. For medical use claims, a ‘plausibility test’ is even performed for assessing sufficiency of disclosure (Art. 83 EPC). Starting from this example, the following article shows why German patent law does not need ‘plausibility’.

17. Patentable subject matter

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Industrial Application ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Technical Effect ◽  
Patentable Subject Matter ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk

This chapter deals with patentable subject matter and the ways in which it is regulated under the Patents Act 1977 and the 2000 European Patents Convention (EPC). More specifically, it discusses five criteria that an invention must satisfy to be patentable, including the requirement that it must be capable of ‘industrial application’, and that patents are not granted for immoral inventions. The chapter also considers two different approaches that are used when deciding whether an invention falls within the scope of section 1(2)/Article 52(2): the ‘technical effect’ approach in the UK and the ‘any hardware’ approach applied by the European Patent Office. Finally, it examines how the law deals with a number of specific types of invention and looks at possible reforms, particularly in relation to computer programs and computer-related inventions.

scholarly journals Patenting Aspects of Natural Products

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Santhosh Kumar. M ◽  
Dr. M. Surendhar Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Natural Products ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
European Law ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Definite Time ◽  
Exclusive Right

A patent is a monopoly right granted to a Patentee for a definite time period, during which he/she is given the exclusive right to stop anyone else from using his/ her invention without approval. The European law may allow patents to be granted to natural products, where such products may not be eligible for patent protection in USA, the European patent office strict assessment of priority and added subject matter, it is important that all subject matter is included in the first application for the invention.

Can a Patent Be Granted for an AI-Generated Invention?

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 1123-1129
Author(s):  
Andreas Engel
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Policy Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Rule Out ◽  
Formal Rules

Abstract Three patent offices had to answer the question of whether a patent can be granted for an invention for which an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system called DABUS was named as inventor. All applications were dismissed, but for different reasons. While the European Patent Office focused on formal rules, the UK Intellectual Property Office considered more substantive aspects, and the US Patent and Trademark Office relied on statutory language. From a policy perspective, the decisions find support in the fact that there is no clear consensus for AI to be recognized as an inventor, and that difficult questions would ensue if this were accepted. From a doctrinal perspective, the decisions do not rule out the patentability of AI-assisted inventions in general, as it remains possible to designate a human inventor when AI has merely facilitated the inventive process. This leaves the question of who should own a patent for an AI-generated invention, if patentability for such inventions is considered desirable. A possible solution could be to grant ownership directly to the company operating or owning the AI.

Patenting Software

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noam Shemtov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

This chapter examines some key elements of patent protection for computer-implemented inventions, with particular emphasis on the patent eligibility of software-implemented inventions in the United States and European Patent Office. It begins with an overview of computer-implemented inventions in the United States, focusing on policy trends and judicial interpretation. It analyses the US Supreme Court ruling in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l. and its effect on the landscape of software-related patents, before discussing computer-implemented inventions at the European Patent Office, highlighting trends and the development of case law. Finally, it considers the convergence of the current approaches in the United States and European Patent Office with respect to patenting of software.

Disclaimers in European Patent Applications

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (12) ◽  
pp. 1204-1216
Author(s):  
Michał Barycki
Keyword(s):  
Patent Application ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
European Patent ◽  
General Notion ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Patent Applications ◽  
The Eu

Abstract A European patent application may be amended by, among others, deleting a part of the claimed subject matter under established conditions or by the incorporation of an undisclosed or disclosed disclaimer. Disclaimers are a useful tool in order to maintain the balance between the practical needs of applicants and the interests of third parties in legal clarity and completeness. The incorporation of disclaimers may not extend beyond the content of the European patent application as filed and the protection it confers. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how an applicant can introduce a negative technical feature into the patent application in the light of the extensive judicial practice of the Technical and Enlarged Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. The author has analysed the criteria for disclaimers set out in decisions G 1/03, G 2/10 and G 1/16 in accordance with the general notion of patent law and requirements of patentability. Additionally, this problem was also characterized in the light of the judicial practice of national courts and legislations of the EU Member States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document