Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Inventions without inventors: The challenge of applying patent law objectives to AI generated inventions

Johansen, Emma LU (2022) JURM02 20222
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Artificiell intelligens utvecklas snabbt och blir alltmer självständig. Detta framgår av de patentansökningar som nyligen lämnats in för uppfinningar som gjorts av DABUS som är en AI. Enligt rättspraxis angående DABUS uppfinningar kan endast en fysisk person vara uppfinnare i patentlagstiftningens mening. Detta beror på att uppfinnaren måste ha rättskapacitet för att kunna inneha de rättigheterna förknippade med att anges som uppfinnare. Detta innebär i praktiken att AI-genererade uppfinningar inte är patenterbara även om uppfinningen i sig uppfyller kraven för patent. Ämnets relevans ökar i takt med AIs utveckling.
Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka möjligheterna att skydda AI skapade uppfinningar inom den europeiska patenträtten. I... (More)
Artificiell intelligens utvecklas snabbt och blir alltmer självständig. Detta framgår av de patentansökningar som nyligen lämnats in för uppfinningar som gjorts av DABUS som är en AI. Enligt rättspraxis angående DABUS uppfinningar kan endast en fysisk person vara uppfinnare i patentlagstiftningens mening. Detta beror på att uppfinnaren måste ha rättskapacitet för att kunna inneha de rättigheterna förknippade med att anges som uppfinnare. Detta innebär i praktiken att AI-genererade uppfinningar inte är patenterbara även om uppfinningen i sig uppfyller kraven för patent. Ämnets relevans ökar i takt med AIs utveckling.
Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka möjligheterna att skydda AI skapade uppfinningar inom den europeiska patenträtten. I uppsatsen används den rättsdogmatiska metoden för att analysera relevant lagstiftning och jämföra den med patenträttens mål. Detta görs för att kunna diskutera de lege ferenda och ge svar på möjliga lösningar för att skydda AI skapade uppfinningar. För att analysera framtida lösningar är det relevant att förstå motiveringarna bakom patentsystemet för att säkerställa att framtida lösningar överensstämmer med patenträttens mål. Motiveringarna för patentsystemet analyseras med hjälp av filosofiska och ekonomiska teorier. Detta tillämpas sedan på ämnet av AI skapade uppfinningar. Frågan om huruvida en annan tolkning av begreppet juridisk personlighet kan antas för att möjliggöra att AI utses till uppfinnare inom patenträtten diskuteras efter en analys av den nuvarande rättspraxis. Andra lösningar diskuteras mot bakgrund av patenträttens motiveringar.
Uppsatsen drar slutsatsen att patenträttens mål är att stödja utveckling i samhället genom att främja uppfinningar och delandet av dessa uppfinningar. Att undanta AI skapande uppfinningar från patentskydd skulle avvika från patenträttens syfte eftersom det skulle riskera minskad investering och innovation i AI-utveckling. Detta skulle motverka att AI-uppfinningar delas med samhället eftersom de skulle hamna i den offentliga sfären. Det finns därför ett behov av att skydda AI-uppfinningar för att upprätthålla
6
patenträttens mål. En lösning skulle kunna vara att anta en alternativ tolkning av begreppet juridisk personlighet och utvidga rättsliga möjligheter för AI att bli nämnd uppfinnare. Kravet på att utse en uppfinnare enligt patentlagstiftningen skyddar dock den mänskliga uppfinnarens rätt till erkännande. Denna lösning är därför inte bäst lämpad. Slutsatsen i uppsatsen är att det behövs ett nytt patentsystem för uppfinningar som inte har fysiska personer som uppfinnare. Denna lösning gör det möjligt att skydda den mänskliga uppfinnarens rätt, att anpassa patent behovet utifrån hur mycket som investerats i uppfinningen och att möjliggöra en anpassad definition av uppfinningshöjd i för AI-uppfinningar. (Less)
Abstract
Artificial intelligence is rapidly advancing and becoming more autonomous. This is highlighted by the recent patent applications filed for inventions made by the AI, DABUS. The case law regarding DABUS’ inventions holds that only a natural person can be an inventor within the meaning of patent law. This is because, to hold rights associated with being identified as the inventor, the inventor needs to have legal capacity. This effectively means that AI generated inventions are not patentable even if the invention otherwise would meet the requirements for a patent. The importance of this topic is only growing as AI advances.
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the possibilities of protecting AI generated inventions within European... (More)
Artificial intelligence is rapidly advancing and becoming more autonomous. This is highlighted by the recent patent applications filed for inventions made by the AI, DABUS. The case law regarding DABUS’ inventions holds that only a natural person can be an inventor within the meaning of patent law. This is because, to hold rights associated with being identified as the inventor, the inventor needs to have legal capacity. This effectively means that AI generated inventions are not patentable even if the invention otherwise would meet the requirements for a patent. The importance of this topic is only growing as AI advances.
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the possibilities of protecting AI generated inventions within European patent law. This thesis uses the legal dogmatic method to analyze relevant law and compare it with legal objectives of patent law. This allows discussion of de lege ferenda regarding possible solutions to protect AI generated inventions. To analyze future solutions, it is relevant to understand the justifications behind the patent system to ensure that any future solutions align with the objectives and justifications of patent law. The objectives and justifications of the patent system are analyzed using philosophical and economic theories. They are then applied in the context of AI generated inventions. The question of whether a different interpretation can be adopted of legal personality to allow AI to be designated the inventor within patent law is discussed after an analysis of the current case law on the topic. Other solutions are discussed considering the objectives and justifications of the patent law system.
This thesis concludes that the justification for patent law is to facilitate advancement and progress in society by promoting and sharing innovation and knowledge. Therefore, excluding AI generated inventions from patent protection would deviate from this purpose as it would risk decreasing investment and innovation in AI development. As well, it would disincentivize the sharing of AI generated inventions with society as it would fall into the public domain. Therefore, there is a need to protect AI inventions
4
to uphold the objectives of patent law. A solution could be to adopt a different interpretation of legal personality and extend certain legal capacity for AI to be named the inventor. However, the requirement to designate an inventor under patent law safeguards the human inventor’s right to attribution. This solution is therefore not viable. What is concluded in this paper is that a new patent regime is needed for inventions that do not have natural persons as inventors. This will allow safeguarding the right of the human inventor, adapting the patent need based on the amount of investment put into the invention, and allow for an adapted definition of ‘non-obvious’ or inventive step in the context of AI invention. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Johansen, Emma LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20222
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Immaterialrätt, intellectual property, patent law, artificial intelligence, AI, patents, AI generated inventions, AI inventorship
language
English
id
9104501
date added to LUP
2023-01-24 09:18:59
date last changed
2023-01-24 09:18:59
@misc{9104501,
  abstract     = {{Artificial intelligence is rapidly advancing and becoming more autonomous. This is highlighted by the recent patent applications filed for inventions made by the AI, DABUS. The case law regarding DABUS’ inventions holds that only a natural person can be an inventor within the meaning of patent law. This is because, to hold rights associated with being identified as the inventor, the inventor needs to have legal capacity. This effectively means that AI generated inventions are not patentable even if the invention otherwise would meet the requirements for a patent. The importance of this topic is only growing as AI advances.
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the possibilities of protecting AI generated inventions within European patent law. This thesis uses the legal dogmatic method to analyze relevant law and compare it with legal objectives of patent law. This allows discussion of de lege ferenda regarding possible solutions to protect AI generated inventions. To analyze future solutions, it is relevant to understand the justifications behind the patent system to ensure that any future solutions align with the objectives and justifications of patent law. The objectives and justifications of the patent system are analyzed using philosophical and economic theories. They are then applied in the context of AI generated inventions. The question of whether a different interpretation can be adopted of legal personality to allow AI to be designated the inventor within patent law is discussed after an analysis of the current case law on the topic. Other solutions are discussed considering the objectives and justifications of the patent law system.
This thesis concludes that the justification for patent law is to facilitate advancement and progress in society by promoting and sharing innovation and knowledge. Therefore, excluding AI generated inventions from patent protection would deviate from this purpose as it would risk decreasing investment and innovation in AI development. As well, it would disincentivize the sharing of AI generated inventions with society as it would fall into the public domain. Therefore, there is a need to protect AI inventions
4
to uphold the objectives of patent law. A solution could be to adopt a different interpretation of legal personality and extend certain legal capacity for AI to be named the inventor. However, the requirement to designate an inventor under patent law safeguards the human inventor’s right to attribution. This solution is therefore not viable. What is concluded in this paper is that a new patent regime is needed for inventions that do not have natural persons as inventors. This will allow safeguarding the right of the human inventor, adapting the patent need based on the amount of investment put into the invention, and allow for an adapted definition of ‘non-obvious’ or inventive step in the context of AI invention.}},
  author       = {{Johansen, Emma}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Inventions without inventors: The challenge of applying patent law objectives to AI generated inventions}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}