AI can’t patent inventions, only humans, US Patent Office says

Key Takeaways:

– The US Patent Office (USPTO) has stated that AI cannot be listed as the owner of a patent.
– The owner of the patent must always be a human who has significantly contributed to the invention.
– The USPTO’s document titled “Inventorship Guidance for AI-assisted Inventions” provides clarification on AI-assisted innovation in the patenting process.
– The document does not have the force and effect of law but offers an interpretation of how AI-assisted patents could be submitted based on recent court decisions.
– At least one human must be named as the inventor of the patent, and they can only claim credit if they have made a significant contribution to the output of an AI system.
– Simply giving an AI a goal or asking it to solve a problem does not count as a significant contribution.
– The guidance does not aim to limit the use of AI but rather provides an interpretation of how responsible AI-assisted innovation should be regulated and rewarded.
– The document references the AI executive order set forth by the Biden Administration in October 2023.

TechRadar:

The US Patent Office (USPTO) has said that AI cannot be listed as the owner of a patent, even if the AI did all the hard work.

The owner of the patent must always be human, although that human must have “significantly contributed” to the invention itself, the USPTO said in a new document entered to the federal register.

Source link

AI Eclipse TLDR:

The US Patent Office (USPTO) has clarified that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be listed as the owner of a patent, even if the AI was responsible for the invention. According to a document entered into the federal register, the owner of a patent must always be a human who has significantly contributed to the invention. This means that if an AI independently generates a patentable design, the person who created the AI cannot claim ownership of the patent. The document, titled “Inventorship Guidance for AI-assisted Inventions,” emphasizes that while AI-assisted innovation is becoming more common, the patenting process should primarily be attributed to humans who are incentivized and rewarded for submitting patents. The USPTO’s guidance does not have the force of law but provides an interpretation of how AI-assisted patents could be submitted in the future. It states that at least one human must be named as the inventor of the patent, and that human can only claim credit if they make a significant contribution to the AI’s output to create the invention. Simply giving an AI a goal or asking it to solve a problem does not count as a significant contribution. The document draws on the AI executive order by the Biden Administration, which recognizes the potential of responsible AI to boost innovation, competition, and collaboration. The USPTO’s guidance aims to regulate and reward responsible AI-assisted innovation rather than limit its use.