USPTO Issues Report on Artificial Intelligence

By David Hricik, Mercer Law School

I haven’t yet had the chance to read this, but officials at the USPTO and EPO, as well as working groups at AIPLA, WIPO, and others, have been struggling with AI as inventors, including who to name as an inventor (not AI, says the USPTO, UKIPO, and EPO), as well as what does 103/inventiveness mean when AI is involved.  The report is here.

I’ll be reading it, and your comments.

About David

Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. Formerly Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma, LLP and in 2012-13, judicial clerk to Chief Judge Rader.

One thought on “USPTO Issues Report on Artificial Intelligence

  1. 1

    I think the USPTO rules have always been clear that inventors must be “natural persons” (35 U.S.C. § 100(f), (g)). Back in the late 1990’s when I was working at Incyte Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (then Incyte Genomics) in Palo Alto, we filed many hundreds of applications based on consensus sequences for genes, ORFs and ESTs… drug targets….then licensed them to Big Pharma… all of this “inventive” data was computer generated. Of course the inventors were the brilliant programmers. Was this legitimate at the time? Is it legitimate now? Should it be?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture