AI should not be considered an inventor — Google

3 years ago 1

ARTICLE AD BOX

In a new filing submitted to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Google argues that artificial intelligence (AI) technology should not be considered an “inventor” in US patent law, Axios reports.

This comes after the USPTO requested comment on AI technologies, asking people how AI is used to create inventions and whether it should qualify for treatment as a joint inventor.

For reference, the questions proposed by USPTO are quoted below

“If an AI system contributes to an invention at the same level as a human who would be considered a joint inventor, is the invention patentable under current patent laws?”

“Are there situations in which AI-generated contributions are not owned by any entity and therefore part of the public domain?”

The immense popularity of generative AI technologies has led to various legal concerns over ownership, authorship, copyright, and other aspects.

Therefore, Google wants the USPTO to put its foot down by urging it to exclude AI from its “inventor” definition.

“As our comments say, we believe AI should not be labelled as an inventor under the US Patent Law, and believe people should hold patents on innovations brought about with the help of AI,” Axios quoted Google senior patent counsel Laura Sheridan as saying.

“We hope that the US Patent and Trademark Office will issue clear guidance on this issue, and turn its attention to providing technical training for patent examiners examining AI-related inventions.”

The tech giant emphasised that humans are properly named inventors, while AI is merely a tool leveraged in the invention process.

South Africa became the first country in the world to grant a patent to an artificial intelligence called “Dabus” in July 2021.

Dabus, short for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, received its patent for a food container based on fractal geometry, which is said to improve grip and heat transfer.

The awarding of the patent is curious, as law firm Spoor & Fisher notes that the South African Patents Act does not contain a definition for an “inventor” and instead refers expressly to “him” and “person”.

“It is therefore clear from the SA Patents Act that an inventor must be a person, which an AI system is not,” Spoor & Fisher’s Christopher Mhangwane and David Cochrane wrote.

In March 2023, UK patent lawyer Stuart Baran argued at the country’s top courts that only humans can be inventors in law.

This followed patent application submissions from Imagination Engines Inc. founder Stephen Thaler, which were rejected. Thaler is challenging the ruling.

Baran said allowing an AI to be named as the inventor can open doors to “plainly ridiculous assertion”.

Should the judges rule in favour of Thaler, inventors could include “my cat Felix” or “cosmic forces,” he said.