In an age of fast-paced technological change, patents have evolved into not only legal mechanisms of intellectual property, but also structured storage containers of knowledge full of metadata, categories, and formal innovation. This chapter proposes to reframe patents in the context of information science, by focusing on patents as knowledge artifacts, and by seeing patents as fundamentally tied to the global movement of scientific and technological knowledge. With a focus on three areas, the inventions of AIs, biotech patents, and international competition with patents, this work considers how new technologies are challenging traditional notions of inventorship, access, and moral accountability.The chapter provides a critical analysis of AI's implications for patent authorship and prior art searches, ownership issues arising from proprietary claims in biotechnology to ethical dilemmas, and the problem of using patents for strategic advantage in a global context of innovation competition. In this analysis, the chapter identified the importance of organizing information, creating metadata standards about originality, implementing retrieval systems to access previous works, and ethical contemplation about patenting unseen relationships in innovation ecosystems. Ultimately, the chapter called for a collaborative, transparent, and ethically-based approach in managing knowledge in the patenting environment highlighting the role for information professionals and policy to contribute to access equity in innovation.

Patent prosecutors should consider drafting claims to avoid the situation where the AI is the only entity providing an inventive contribution. Artificial intelligence (AI) is making an impact in our everyday life. AI helps us cut grass and vacuum living rooms. It helps us identify images for applications from waste sorting to medical diagnosis. AI also is making an impact in research and development.

Before we all get too deep into using ChatGPT or other AI tools to create things for us, we need to address some of the questions raised around content custody, ownership, and attribution. Some have breathlessly proclaimed ChatGPT to be the most important development since the invention of the printing press or the splitting of the atom. But there are issues with the accuracy, truthfulness, and inherent bias of the materials that AI platforms such as ChatGPT generate. In another matter, since there is speculation that ChatGPT or other AI platforms could take over at least some of the work of writers, analysts, and other content creators, we need to also understand its legal ramifications. And the rules around using ChatGPT to generate term papers seem pretty clear (don't even think about it). But when it comes to applying AI-generated prose in content intended for wider distribution -- say marketing materials, white papers, or even articles -- the legalities get a little murky.

"While technology analysis is still new, it can provide some of the needed foundations for technology as a field of its own and answer such questions as'Can AI invent?.'" Not long ago, Dr. Stephen Thaler, a member of the scientific community, began claiming that his artificial intelligence (AI) machine, DABUS, was a bona fide inventor. The outcome so far has been that the claim has been rejected in most jurisdictions. A notable exception is South Africa, which accepted Thaler's patent application under "Formalities Examination" with DABUS as named inventor. The acceptance of the patent in South Africa and the evolution of the legal field opens the possibility of further assertions and challenges with respect to AI inventorship.

Can an artificial intelligence (AI) system be a named inventor on a United States patent? No, says a federal appeals court in a decision issued earlier this month. The case, Thaler v. Vidal, arose from two patent applications filed in 2019 by Stephen Thaler, naming an AI system he calls DABUS (for "Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience") as the "inventor." After the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) informed Thaler that the applications were incomplete because they did not list a human inventor, he filed a complaint in a federal district court in Virginia. In September 2021, that court ruled against Thaler, citing "the overwhelming evidence that Congress intended to limit the definition of'inventor' to natural persons."

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of life and the UK government has recognized that it is important to review IP laws to ensure that they evolve and promote innovation in this fast-paced area of technology. That was the motivation behind a recent UKIPO consultation which reported earlier this week. With regards to patent protection for AI-devised inventions, the report concluded that no changes are required to UK patent law, at least for the time being. At present, despite claims of certain parties and the international court case relating to the DABUS system which its promotors sought to name as the inventor on patent applications in a number of countries, there is no evidence of AI currently having the capacity to invent. Rather, the general consensus from respondents was that AI technology cannot, at least at present, invent without human assistance.

Editor's note: This article is the fourth in a series of posts about AI and inventorship, developed as part of Professor Colleen V. Chien's AI and the Law class at Santa Clara University School of Law. The first blog describes the Thaler v. Hirshfeld appeal; the second, the technology behind DABUS; and the third, how patent practitioners view the issue of AI inventorship. Author Jungyeon Kim (SCU Law '22) is a technology specialist and an incoming associate at WilmerHale. He was previously an engineer in the server industry. To be patent eligible, an invention must be useful, novel, and nonobvious.

We are excited to bring Transform 2022 back in-person July 19 and virtually July 20 - 28. Join AI and data leaders for insightful talks and exciting networking opportunities. Can artificial intelligence (AI) be legally listed as an inventor? After all, if AI can legally invent products, the number of patents on drug-discovery tools will shoot up fast. The issue is currently before a United States court. The U.S. Court of Appeals heard arguments on that question again last week, and the ruling could affect the pace of AI technology development, particularly within the pharmaceutical and life science industries.

In a previous article of February 6, 2020, we discussed the EPO Receiving Section's refusal, in January 2020, of two European patent applications where an AI system called DABUS was indicated as the inventor1 . We then looked at the grounds of the decisions2 (concerning applications EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174 for "food container" and "devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention"), and predicted that the EPO Board of Appeal (BoA) was bound to shed light on the novel and intriguing legal issue of whether a non-human, such as an artificial intelligence (AI), could be named as inventor in the system of the EPC. The BoA has now issued its decision, which is worth commenting. The applicant, one Mr. Stephen Thaler, had filed his appeals against the refusal (cases J 8/20 and J 9/20), along with an auxiliary request whereby no person was allegedly identified as inventor, but a natural person was indicated to hold "the right to the European Patent by virtue of being the owner and creator of" the DABUS AI system. By decision of December 21, 20213, the BoA dismissed the appeal, confirming that the EPC required the inventor to be a person with legal capacity.

Existing intellectual property laws don't allow AI systems to be recognized as inventors, which threatens the integrity of the patent system and the potential to develop life-changing innovations. Current legislation only allows humans to be recognized as inventors, which could make AI-generated innovations unpatentable. This would deprive the owners of the AI of the legal protections they need for the inventions that their systems create. The Artificial Inventor Project team has been testing the limitations of these rules by filing patent applications that designate a machine as the inventor-- the first time that an AI's role as an inventor had ever been disclosed in a patent application. They made the applications on behalf of Dr Stephen Thaler, the creator of a system called DABUS, which was listed as the inventor of a food container that robots can easily grasp, and a flashing warning light designed to attract attention during emergencies.