Patenting AI: Legal implications

What is AI:
Artificial intelligence mimics sure operations of the human mind and is that the term used once
machines area unit able to complete tasks that usually need human intelligence.
The term machine learning is when computers use rules (algorithms) to analyze data and learn
patterns and glean insights from the data. Artificial intelligence may be a massive issue shifting
the manner legal work is completed.the future of technology is artificial intelligence and it’s also
going to affect the legal industry worldwide the global law firms already using artificial
intelligence in their day to day operations which makes AI more important.
AI which constitutes deep learning and predictive analysis are advancing machine learning
techniques. while natural language processing is becoming so advanced that nuances in human
speech are easy for AI to understand and also AI driven image recognition systems are making
self-driving cars safer and more reliable the number of an advancement that AI brings is really a
commendable job which needs to be applauded for such great advancement takes place in
artificial intelligence so the companies that are involved will certainly be interested in protecting
the intellectual property that powers their AI innovations.

Artificial intelligence vs intellectual property rights

According to European patents office patenting AI is best but there is a tussle somehow
originated as a lot of creative thoughts go for AI but only some of the intellectual property
associated out with artificial intelligence related innovation is eligible for patent protection.
The fact is that patents granted for inventions, not for the idea.and for the invention you must
have a prototype that can be used by someone, in terms of AI-related inventions several things
could be considered a patentable invention.
For instance, physical hard work that works with AI-software maybe patent eligible as a
machine. or, the process of how the AI operates or the process behind how the AI gathers and
uses data may also be protectable with a patent.
For AI related inventions, it is critical that the patent claims be carefully drafted so that the
invention is patent eligible.AI software are inventions are often denied patent protection because
they are not claimed as the machine or as a process, and determined to be an abstract idea by
authorities. So it’s always advisable that special care must be taken while drafting a patent claims
in such a way that it is constituted more than a mere abstract idea and having an impact on the
concerned authorities.1

1
http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/tender/175_1/1_expression_of_interest-AI-02-08-2018.pdf
Intelligence-beyond question the most important virtue of humans over all different
species has evolved in true sense in last one decade once humans have started
transferring “intelligence” to the machines – resulting in the sunrise sector familiar
as computing such is that the power of “artificial intelligence” that in sure protocol
related choices supported gigabytes of knowledge evaluation, the machines
possessing artificial intelligence area unit outperforming humans by great margins.
machine performances area unit even better just in case of bulk knowledge
evaluations, which leads U.S to place confidence in implementing artificial
intelligence for determination issues associated with fact based choices or tasks to
be performed in terribly large numbers. This thought has resulted in governments
additionally currently considering effective mainstream use of block chain, artificial
intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems in their public processes that
area unit otherwise manual or part- automated.

Increased acceptance of Artificial intelligence

The public view of AI has become more excessive usage in recent years which can
indirectly affect legal and policy considerations. Although the perception of AI has been
more guarded in the United States than in East Asia (such as Japan, South Korea and China)
AI's increased ubiquity mixed with understanding of it’s potential benefits have improved
it’s reception in the United States ; according to research jointly published by arm and
northern star research partners, most of the them expected a better and fruitful future by AI.
The US notable trend and many events indicate the dogma of public consent of AI in certain
societies.
In Europe for eg. A recent survey conducted by the European parliament is evident that 68%
people expressed positive views on AI , and higher proportion (79%) had positive views on
robotics . In Japan , deep knowledge Venture Capital Firm named AI based robots vital to
it’s board of directors in 2014. Going even further Saudi Arabia a magnificent AI powered
robot Sophia the world 1 st AI citizen . Such increased acceptance and implementation of AI
as an independent being of citizen can significant impact policy consideration pertaining to
patient law issues, particularly on weather AI can be viewed as an “inventor” and
“infringer” .

The patent subject-matter eligibility standard for AI

Before exploring truly disrupted and less explored patent topics such as the patentability of
inventions created by AI this paper addresses the current hotly debated topic of patent
subject matter eligibility for software particular for a software although and increasing
number of patents are being issued in the United States the present legal framework on
patentable subject matter become more stringent in 2014 and puzzles heightened challenges
for patent applicants in obtaining a patent given that I could have much greater impact on
society that non intelligent software more discussions are needed on the elevated standards
impact on innovation ethics and the economy after all as justice Richard lane of the US
Court of appeals for the federal circuit the danger of getting the answer to these questions
wrong is greatest for some of today’s most important inventions, such as in computing and
in AI.2

Some instances for better understanding of Patentability of AI

Many believe that AI will become so capable in the coming future that it will be filing the
patents and the real problem is arising out of this that it’s a threat for basic principle of IPR
there have been many discussions and publications towards the effect on IPR regime for
instance in the wake of a Court decision involving a selfie taking monkey the United States
copyright office updated its interpretation of authorship in 2016 to clarify that it will not
register work’s produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly
automatically it is stress that copyright lovely protect the fruits of intellectual labour that are
found in the creative power of the mind.
as per the European Union draft report of the European Parliament to the commission on
civil laws ruleson robotics humanity may be at risk of surpassing human intellectual
capacity to avoid this danger the draught report stresses the important of humanity
maintaining the capacity to control its own creations there have been numerous high degree
computational creative innovation until now and this has been spark debates all over the
world for the examination of copyright standards for AI ruling from the San Francisco code
9 copyright request for a selfie taking Macau monkey represent the steps towards it also
various copyright offices across the world have already mentioned that they won’t registered
machine produced work on similar lines confusion mein arise when Nobel inventions are
created by AI enabled machines without any human intervention who will on the patents on
Nobel inventions filed by machines with the machine robot with the owner of future
inventions when ownership rights are distributed among different entities, which entity will
be able to infosearch rights. 3

Under US patent law and inventor is defined as an individual or set of individuals who
invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention this definition eliminates patent
grant to inventions to anything else besides human however the ever increasing involvement
of AI in developing new technology has left the world to revisit the patent laws such
pollution can be observed in distinctly in that turned by the European Union to inspirations
to expand their natural laws general to accommodate copyrightable works produced by
computer and other devices under the category of an intellectual creation do this is a liberal
step in the direction of acknowledging creativity exhibited by the systems while producing
poetry artwork accepted duraguard must also be paid to include inventions and application
of patents by system and robotics from AI generated inventions will increase social cost and
monopolies and thwart entry of new ventures in the industry.

2
www.iiprd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/revocation.ppt
3
Consolidated patent laws, U.S.C https://www.uspto.gov/web/pac/mpap
the patent eligibility issue for AI generated inventions must be explored in the context of
weather patent on AI generated inventions would further the patent law systems main
objectives some have a good that granting patent rights generated inventions would
accelerate innovation even enabling advances that would not have been possible through
human engine unity alone others have argued that patent right do not promote innovation
irrespective of whether inventions and generated by people for under this view more patent
resulting from here is generated inventions.
Patent infringement liability
The view that patent infringement by humans or AI should be deterred is likely not
controversial moreover failing to hold someone liable for patent infringement by I will
likely encourage using AI for infringement but more discussions on how to handle patent
infringement by IR required such as then how you should be held liable and on how are
liability should be assessed the answer must promote the patent law systems main objective
as well as maximize the social economic and ethical benefits of artificial intelligence
pertaining to Patentability will also benefit and maximize the social, economic and ethical
benefits.
The European Parliament resolution at least at the present stage advocates holding a person
responsible rather than an AI to which human activity to hold libel possibility would be the
end users as noted in the resolution, the rules governing liability for harmful actions where
the user of a product is liable for a behaviour that leads to her food applied to damages
caused by AI this can create uncertainty among software users however and may lead to
their this use of otherwise helpful AI. 4

Nonobviousness standard for AI

The non obviousness standard is designed to maintain penumbra around the stock of known
devices and techniques to ensure that patent rights are not granted to trivial obviously
extensions of what is already known the non obviousness requirement has been described as
the ultimate constitution of patentability and the most important of the basic patent
requirements among the patentability requirements the non obviousness standard is the
primary hurdle for most applications the doctor has faced many complexities and herders
because of difficulties in determining what constitutes of vs and who the hypothetical
person of ordinary skill in the art should be in addition what will be the considered non
obvious and thus patentable must reflect the changing inventor practices but seeing the
benchmark for non obvious thus and ordinary skill in the art should be.one of the most
important factor for determining Patentability. 5

4
Victoria slind-for “cloem, PepsiCo,coca cola,in dyne: intellectual property”Bloomberg Tech (3oct2014)
5
“Top 10 hot AI technologies”Forbes (9 July 2017)