Foundational Patents in Artificial Intelligence

Author(s):  
Raphael Zingg

Despite advocating openness, technology leaders have been patenting artificial intelligence (AI) inventions at an exponentially increasing rate. Patents on foundational techniques with broad applications have the potential to deter innovation in the field, should the privatization of key components of artificial intelligence be used to exclude third-party innovators. This chapter studies patent applications in the US and demonstrates the extent to which the field has grown over the last twenty years. It then seeks to explore foundational patents by focusing on triadic patents: patents filed jointly with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office, and the Japanese Patent Office. The results of this chapter indicate an increasingly globalized AI field. A proverbial land grab seems to be occurring; an increase in AI patenting, particularly the protection of triadic patents, illustrates industry players aggressively attempting to own the building blocks of a rapidly emerging market. A number of policy levers are presented, highlighting how the patent offices and courts can counter the patenting of foundational patents by relying on strict and narrow patentability standards.

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-174
Author(s):  
Mark B. Wilson ◽  
Daniel Alge

Many jurisdictions, including the European Patent Office (EPO), have opposition proceedings in which an interested third party can challenge the validity of the claims of an issued patent. The United States Congress is considering legislation that would introduce opposition proceedings in the USA. This paper reviews the existing EPO and proposed US opposition procedures and provides practical suggestions for dealing with oppositions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (44) ◽  
pp. 230-240
Author(s):  
Olha Pavlyuk ◽  
Nataliia Parasiuk ◽  
Alona Dutko ◽  
Vasyl Parasiuk ◽  
Oksana Stasiv

The aim of the article is to solve the scientific problem of outlining the issue of protection of patent law objects created using artificial intelligence technologies, and to establish whether it is possible to recognize artificial intelligence technologies as inventor at the present stage of development of legal systems. Philosophical, comparative-legal and system-structural methods were used in the research process. Based on the analysis of the European Patent Convention, the main generally accepted conditions of patentability of the invention are determined: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability. It has been established that inventions created by artificial intelligence technologies will meet such criteria provided that certain requirements are met. In the context of the study, the case of the invention of artificial intelligence «DABUS» is analyzed and the results of its consideration in the European Patent Organization, the United Kingdom and the United States are summarized. In particular, it has been established that artificial intelligence technologies are currently not considered as inventors in either the Romano-Germanic or Anglo-Saxon legal systems.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
khoiriazulhijah

AbstractPerbedaan sistem hukum perlindungan lingkup paten di berbagai Negara,tidak hanya mengimpor investasi baru namun juga menentukan proses transfer teknologi suatu Negara. Perlindungan yang meluas menyebabkan transfer teknologi tidak mudah walaupun kurangnya perlindungan karena pemilik paten mengalami kerugian.kedua perbedaan niat tersebut menghasilkan perlunya studi komperatif tentang cangkupan perlindungan paten di Negara-negara. Ada dua masalah yang harus dijajaki, pertama apa perbedaan dan kesamaan cakupan perlindungan paten dalam peraturan negara dan yang kedua bagaimana sistem hukum mempengaruhi kejadian yang berbeda? A.INTRODUCTIONPerkembangan Teknologi suatu Negara,tidak lepas dari aspek perlindungan hak paten yang berlaku pada Negara tersebut. Negara jepang sebagai contoh, adalah Negara yang dikenal paling maju teknologinya.Semula Negara ini banyak mencontoh teknologi Negara-negara Eropa dan Amerika, namun dalam perkembangan yang kita ketahui akhir-akhir ini justru jepanglah yang menjadi kiblat dari Negara-negara lain termasuk Eropa dan Amerika.B.CONTENT1.Perlindungan paten di Negara-Negara Eropa Konvensi Paten Eropa, Undang-Undang Paten Jerman, Amerika Serikat, dan Jepang, dalam makalah “Comparative Study on the Japanese, the United States and the European Patent Systems”, oleh Japan Patent Office Asia-Pacific Industrial Property Center di Jepang belum lama ini (tahun 2001), bila ditelaah banyak mengungkap persamaan/perbedaan perlindungan paten negara-negara tersebut. Beberapa pasal konvensi dan undang-undang negara dimaksud, memperkaya isi tulisan ini.C.CONCLUSIONPerlindungan paten baik bagi negara-negara Eropa yang mengikuti Konvensi Paten Eropa, Jepang maupun Indonesia memiliki persamaan dalam memberikan perlindungan paten berdasarkan prinsip first-to-file, yang berbeda dengan Amerika Serikat berdasarkan prinsip first-to-invent. Sekalipun Amerika Serikat menggunakan prinsip first-to-invent, tetapi Amerika Serikat juga mengatur syarat perlindungan sebagaimana negara-negara Eropa, Jepang dan Indonesia yang berupa penemuan baru, mengandung langkah inventif, dan dapat diterapkan dalam industri. D.DISCUSSIONIndonesia yang sekarang ini dalam undang-undangnya masih mengatur secara umum lingkup perlindungan hak paten, disarankan mengikuti prilaku hakim pengadilan Jepang yang mengadopsi doktrin file wrapper estoppel dan equivalent sebagaimana berlaku di Amerika Serikat. Hal ini didasarkan pertimbangan bahwa doktrin yang dimaksud memberikan keseimbangan pada perlindungan pemegang paten, di samping perlindungan kepentingan negara dalam proses alih teknologi. E.REFERENCE [1]O. M. Febriani and A. S. Putra, “Sistem Informasi Monitoring Inventori Barang Pada Balai Riset Standardisasi Industri Bandar Lampung,” J. Inform., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 90–98, 2014.[2]A. S. Putra, “Paperplain: Execution Fundamental Create Application With Borland Delphi 7.0 University Of Mitra Indonesia,” 2018.[3]A. S. Putra, “2018 Artikel Struktur Data, Audit Dan Jaringan Komputer,” 2018.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Monteiro dos Santos ◽  
Heleno José Costa Bezerra Netto ◽  
Ricardo Carvalho Rodrigues

The right to appeal exists as a response to the two main characteristics of every human being. The first refers to the attitude of not settling for adverse decisions, which leads people to seek instruments to remediate these decisions, while the second is the possibility that every human being has to make mistakes and the need to correct these mistakes in decision-making acts that may have been mistaken. Therefore, an appeal is an instrument that enables review of a decision by a higher authority to obtain its modification or revocation. In the patent system, appeals are used basically to reverse decisions of patent examiners during the examination procedure as, for example, the decision to reject a patent. Although all patent offices have procedures for appeal against first-instance decisions taken by these offices, there are significant differences as to how this procedure is conducted in each office. This chapter will study the laws and regulations, rules and procedures on appeals in two of the main patent offices in the world – the European Patent Office – EPO and the United States Patent and Trademark Office – USPTO, and in the Brazilian Patent Office – INPI, pointing out the main differences between them.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
khoiriazulhijah

AbstractPerbedaan sistem hukum perlindungan lingkup paten di berbagai Negara,tidak hanya mengimpor investasi baru namun juga menentukan proses transfer teknologi suatu Negara. Perlindungan yang meluas menyebabkan transfer teknologi tidak mudah walaupun kurangnya perlindungan karena pemilik paten mengalami kerugian.kedua perbedaan niat tersebut menghasilkan perlunya studi komperatif tentang cangkupan perlindungan paten di Negara-negara. Ada dua masalah yang harus dijajaki, pertama apa perbedaan dan kesamaan cakupan perlindungan paten dalam peraturan negara dan yang kedua bagaimana sistem hukum mempengaruhi kejadian yang berbeda? A.INTRODUCTIONPerkembangan Teknologi suatu Negara,tidak lepas dari aspek perlindungan hak paten yang berlaku pada Negara tersebut. Negara jepang sebagai contoh, adalah Negara yang dikenal paling maju teknologinya.Semula Negara ini banyak mencontoh teknologi Negara-negara Eropa dan Amerika, namun dalam perkembangan yang kita ketahui akhir-akhir ini justru jepanglah yang menjadi kiblat dari Negara-negara lain termasuk Eropa dan Amerika.B.CONTENT1.Perlindungan paten di Negara-Negara Eropa Konvensi Paten Eropa, Undang-Undang Paten Jerman, Amerika Serikat, dan Jepang, dalam makalah “Comparative Study on the Japanese, the United States and the European Patent Systems”, oleh Japan Patent Office Asia-Pacific Industrial Property Center di Jepang belum lama ini (tahun 2001), bila ditelaah banyak mengungkap persamaan/perbedaan perlindungan paten negara-negara tersebut. Beberapa pasal konvensi dan undang-undang negara dimaksud, memperkaya isi tulisan ini.C.CONCLUSIONPerlindungan paten baik bagi negara-negara Eropa yang mengikuti Konvensi Paten Eropa, Jepang maupun Indonesia memiliki persamaan dalam memberikan perlindungan paten berdasarkan prinsip first-to-file, yang berbeda dengan Amerika Serikat berdasarkan prinsip first-to-invent. Sekalipun Amerika Serikat menggunakan prinsip first-to-invent, tetapi Amerika Serikat juga mengatur syarat perlindungan sebagaimana negara-negara Eropa, Jepang dan Indonesia yang berupa penemuan baru, mengandung langkah inventif, dan dapat diterapkan dalam industri. D.DISCUSSIONIndonesia yang sekarang ini dalam undang-undangnya masih mengatur secara umum lingkup perlindungan hak paten, disarankan mengikuti prilaku hakim pengadilan Jepang yang mengadopsi doktrin file wrapper estoppel dan equivalent sebagaimana berlaku di Amerika Serikat. Hal ini didasarkan pertimbangan bahwa doktrin yang dimaksud memberikan keseimbangan pada perlindungan pemegang paten, di samping perlindungan kepentingan negara dalam proses alih teknologi.


2017 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyghia Maria Araújo Meirelles ◽  
Fernanda Nervo Raffin

There has been a growing trend in recent years for the development of hybrid materials, called composites, based on clay and polymers, whose innovative properties render them attractive for drug release. The objective of this manuscript was to conduct a review of original articles on this topic published over the last decade and of the body of patents related to these carriers. A scientific prospection was carried out spanning the period from 2005 to 2015 on the Web of Science database. The technological prospection encompassed the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office, the World International Patent Office and the National Institute of Industrial Property databases, filtering patents with the code A61K. The survey revealed a rise in the number of publications over the past decade, confirming the potential of these hybrids for use in pharmaceutical technology. Through interaction between polymer and clay, the mechanical and thermal properties of composites are enhanced, promoting stable, controlled drugs release in biological media. The most cited clays analyzed in the articles was montmorillonite, owing to its high surface area and capacity for ion exchange. The polymeric part is commonly obtained by copolymerization, particularly using acrylate derivatives. The hybrid materials are obtained mainly in particulate form on a nanometric scale, attaining a modified release profile often sensitive to stimuli in the media. A low number of patents related to the topic were found. The World International Patent Office had the highest number of lodged patents, while Japan was the country which published the most patents. A need to broaden the application of this technology to include more therapeutic classes was identified. Moreover, the absence of regulation of nanomaterials might explain the disparity between scientific and technological output. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see “For Readers”) may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue’s contents page.


2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 1123-1129
Author(s):  
Andreas Engel

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Letícia Nonnenmacher ◽  
Marcelo Fabiano Costella ◽  
Monike de Medeiros Costella ◽  
Tarcisio Abreu Saurin

Abstract This article presents a selection method of existing innovations in patents that propose improvements in Temporary Edge Protection Systems (TEPS). The method was divided into three stages. In stage 1, records were collected related to TEPS from the patent filing databases of the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (National Institute of Industrial Property, Brazil), the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the European Patent Office. In stage 2, patents were selected based on the TEPS evaluation protocol created by Peñaloza, Formoso and Saurin (2017), which examines safety, efficiency and flexibility criteria. In stage 3, four patents were selected among the 20 patents found related to guard rails and three related to protection nets. Based on the results, one invention stands out that uses hollow posts in protection barriers, which allows for modular movement with safety and flexibility. The framework proposed in this research is a useful resource for disseminating techniques included in TEPS patent databases.


2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (9) ◽  
pp. 918-924
Author(s):  
Martin Stierle

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document