Posted in America, Europe, Law, Patents at 12:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz Summary: With buzzwords like "AI" and misleading terms like "IP" the litigation zealots are trying to convince themselves (and the public) that software is a physical thing and a "property" which needs "protecting" from "theft"; it doesn't seem to bother these people that copyright law already covers software HOW can a patent office seriously assert that it is serious about innovation when everyone who meets the officials comes from law firms and rarely has any scientific background? If this system's inception truly dates back to need to advance science, shouldn't these officials focus on actual scientists? This may sound like a shallow observation, but it perfectly describes the pattern we've been seeing at the European Patent Office (EPO) under António Campinos and his predecessor Battistelli (neither of whom has any background in the sciences). Seeing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) wants to work around 35 U.S.C. § 101, we're nowadays witnessing a similar trend in America too. A resurgence of software patents in Europe poses risk to US (case)law as well.
Filing a patent is the clerical equivalent of pulling teeth -- at least in the U.S. It first requires inventors to determine the type of intellectual property (IP) protection they require (i.e., utility, design, or plant). Then they're on the hook to conduct a United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database search for similar inventions. If and only if the novelty of their idea passes muster are they allowed to proceed to the next step, which is preparing an application and fees. The system has motivated people like former aerospace engineer Dr. Stephen Thaler to turn to AI in pursuit of a better way. He, along with a team of legal experts and engineers, developed DABUS, a "creativity machine" that's able to generate ideas without human intervention.
Securing patents for inventions that use artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning can be challenging for innovators of these ground-breaking technologies, which attempt to use the processing power of computers to replicate the intelligence and learning capabilities of humans. Without patent or other intellectual property protection, they may be unable to commercialise their inventions, which could undermine investment in this dynamic field of research and development. To clear the way for innovators, the European Patent Office has recently amended its'Guidelines for Examination' by including a new section containing advice about how patents related to AI and machine learning technologies should be assessed. The guidance clarifies that whilst algorithms are regarded as'computational' and abstract in nature, which means they are not patentable per se, once applied to a technical problem they may become eligible for patent protection. Beneficially, the approach outlined in the guidance is similar to that currently used to assess the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
Patents are filed in China for international protection of inventions under PCT route after domestic patent filing. The first patent application is filed in home country to secure a patent priority date. Thereafter, within 12 months of the priority date, a PCT international phase application is filed with the WIPO. The PCT international patent application provides a time period of almost 30 to 31 months from the priority date to file the same patent application in multiple countries, including, India, China, Singapore, and the like. China and India amended their patent laws to fulfill the obligation of TRIPS agreement.
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) said on Wednesday (Aug 28) that it has granted an artificial intelligence (AI) patent to Chinese tech giant Alibaba Group in a record time of three months. The patent was granted under IPOS' Accelerated Initiative for Artificial Intelligence (AI2). The average time needed for such patents is usually two to four years, IPOS said. The hope is that with the expedited application-to-grant process under AI2, innovators can bring their AI inventions faster to the global market through Singapore. This could be a crucial development in Singapore's bid to be the intellectual property (IP) hub for cutting-edge technologies.